To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

“ Celebrating Its
5th Anniversary”
On July 22, 2008, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program celebrated its fifth anniversary. To-gether
with our partners, we have planned, designed, built and grown more than 530 stream
and wetland compensatory mitigation projects for business and residential private develop-ers,
municipalities, schools and the North Carolina Department of Transportation. In the
process we also built a nationally recognized, award- winning organization. This annual re-port
is dedicated to our staff and partners, who have been instrumental in accomplishing
goals and achieving success.
Table of Contents
I. EEP Programs p. 1
II. Watershed Planning and Project Implementation p. 3
a. Watershed Planning p. 4
b. Project Implementation p. 7
c. Synergies Between Watershed Planning and Project Implementation p. 8
d. Collaborative Partnerships p. 9
III. Financial Accounting, Cost Data and Property Acquisition p. 15
a. Revenue, Expenditures and Encumbrances p. 15
b. Cost of Mitigation Delivery p. 18
c. Property Acquisition p. 21
IV. Program Inventory Status p. 22
a. Stream and Wetland Mitigation Inventory p. 22
b. Statewide Status of MOU and MOA Programs p. 24
c. Statewide Status of Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Programs p. 26
V. Stream and Wetland Compliance p. 28
VI. Monitoring p. 30
a Monitoring p. 30
b. Maintenance Improvements p. 31
c. Project and Program Improvement Research p. 31
VII. Stewardship p. 35
Appendices
A. Watershed Planning and Project Implementation p. 39
i. Projects Identified through the Local Watershed Planning Process p. 39
ii. Local Watershed Plans Completed through Phase III as of July 1, 2008 p. 41
iii. LWP Initiatives in Progress p. 44
iv. Collaborative Projects with Government Entities p. 46
v. Local Watershed Plan Fact Sheets p. 47
B. Stream and Wetland Receipts p. 60
i. Streams and Wetlands In- Lieu Fee Mitigation Program Receipts p. 60
ii. Buffer Receipts p. 72
iii. Nutrient Offset Receipts p. 76
C. Private Mitigation Banking Survey p. 90
i. Mitigation Banking Survey Recipient List p. 90
ii. Mitigation Banking Survey Questions p. 92
D. Contracts p. 93
i. Active Full- Delivery Contracts p. 93
ii. Design and Construction Contracts Awarded 2007- 08 p. 96
iii. FY 2007- 08 Vendor Payments by Contract Type p. 98
E. Properties p. 100
i. Cumulative Properties p. 100
ii. FY 2007- 08 Properties Closed p. 109
iii. FY 2007- 08 Properties Optioned p. 119
F. Monitoring p. 120
i. FY 2007- 08 Total Projects in Monitoring and Long Term Management p. 120
ii. FY 2007- 08 Projects Submitted for Close- out p. 127
List of Figures and Tables
Figures
Figure 1. Map of NC River Basins
p. 2
Figure 2. Peachtree- Martins Creek Local Watershed Planning Area
p. 6
Figure 3. Percentage of EEP Design Bid Build Projects Located in Planning Areas FY 2007- 08
p. 8
Figure 4. Design Bid Build Wetland Credits
p. 9
Figure 5. Design Bid Build Stream Credits
p. 9
Figure 6. MOA Fund 2984 Fiscal Year 2007- 2008
p. 15
Figure 7. Funds 2981, 2982, 2982- 9829; Fiscal Year 2007- 2008
p. 16
Figure 8. Fiscal Year 2007- 2008 Design Bid Build - Contract Payments by Type
p. 21
Figure 9. Status of EEP Stream Mitigation Program in Credits
p. 25
Figure 10. Status of EEP Wetland Program in Credits
p. 26
Tables
Table 1. Nutrient Offset Program Fee Rate
p. 17
Table 2. NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program On- call Authorizations p. 20
Table 3. Total Contracted Services FY 2007- 08
p. 20
Table 4. EEP Total Assets FY 2007- 08 p. 22
Table 5. EEP Inventory of Asset Credits, FY 2007- 08
p. 24
Table 6. Riparian Buffer ILF Program Status FY 2007- 08
p. 26
Table 7. Nutrient Offset ILF Program Status FY 2007- 08
p. 27
Table 8. MOA Program Compliance
p. 28
Table 9. MOU Program Compliance
p. 29
Executive Summary
During its fifth full year of operations in fiscal year 2007- 08, the N. C. Ecosystem Enhancement
Program ( EEP) took on new challenges and continued to register fresh successes in meeting its
goals of improving North Carolina’s environment while facilitating responsible economic growth
for the state and its residents.
EEP continued to collaborate with federal, state and local governments, contractors and willing
landowners to provide goods and services, basing its work on a solid foundation of watershed plan-ning
that goes beyond mere environmental permitting and compliance. The initiative also extended
its record of carrying out its mission without a single transportation- project delay due to the lack of
mitigation, helping to move forward more than $ 4.8 billion in transportation- infrastructure im-provements
since becoming operational in 2003.
Key developments in FY 2007- 08 included:
• Responding to changes to federal rules guiding aquatic- resource mitigation. Under the
leadership of the Governor’s office, N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
( NCDENR) and EEP petitioned the U. S. Office of Management and Budget, the U. S. Environ-mental
Protection Agency and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) in late 2007 to promote in-lieu
fee programs such as EEP as a method to providing third- party mitigation for public- and pri-vate-
sector development. The new rule, which became effective in June of 2008, gave recognition
to EEP’s unique national status and maintained ILFs as a viable option. The rule will require EEP
to make operational adjustments and the details of these changes are being evaluated.
• Securing fee- schedule revisions for the non- NCDOT Stream and Wetland ILF Program.
In July of 2008, a two year process to revise EEP’s fees for stream and wetland mitigation came to
a conclusion. The increased fees were necessary to offset increased costs for land acquisition,
design, construction, maintenance, stewardship and inflation. Information on these new fees can be
found at http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ fee. htm.
• Implementation of Session Law 2008- 152, an act to promote compensatory mitigation by
private mitigation banks, passed by the General Assembly in July 2008. The law, which took
effect on October 1, disallows the use of EEP’s ILF program when credits from a private mitigation
bank are available for purchase. EEP supported the development of a document that describes how
the Department will implement the law. EEP and DWQ will monitor the effects of the law as a
part of its regular reporting requirements to USACE and the General Assembly.
• Implementation of Session Law 2007- 438, an act to establish transitional nutrient offset
payments and to direct the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to develop
and implement a plan to transition the N. C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program nutrient offset
program from a fee- based program to a program based on the actual costs of providing nu-trient
credits. In September 2007, the General Assembly established a fee schedule for the Nu-trient
Offset Program and required that EEP begin the process of converting from a fee schedule
system to an actual cost system. The law required EEP to provide progress reports to the
Environmental Review Commission in September 2008, March 2009, and implement the plan by
September 2009. The September 2008 progress report was presented to the ERC on schedule, and
i.
EEP expects to meet the September 2009 deadline.
• Working in partnership with NCDENR, NCDOT, USACE and other state and federal
agencies to reduce surplus mitigation assets. As reported last year, an interagency task force
came together in August 2007 to begin addressing the issue of surplus mitigation. Since that
time the task force was able to agree on provisions to allow some latitude for the application of
surplus mitigation on specific highway projects. This group has generated strategies that are
expected to eventually reduce an initial surplus of $ 197 million to approximately $ 40 million.
NCDOT, NCDENR and USACE are continuing work to develop and implement ways to fur-ther
reduce the remaining surplus inventory.
Also during FY 2007- 08, EEP has continued to increase the number of projects implemented
based on watershed planning. This year, 85 percent of projects implemented by EEP using the
Design- Bid- Build delivery process were located in watershed- planning areas ( for more infor-mation,
see section II of this report).
The program continues to achieve very high compliance rates. Compliance for the mitigation
program serving NCDOT exclusively ( known as the Memorandum of Agreement ( MOA) pro-gram)
is 95.89 percent for streams, 98.80 percent for riparian wetlands, 98.88 percent for non-riparian
wetlands and 100 percent for coastal marsh. Within the mitigation program that serves
the needs of other developers and the general public ( known as the Memorandum of
Understanding ( MOU) program), 96.7 percent of all requirements were fully met. A statewide
status summary of both programs’ inventory shows that EEP has 1,534,937 feet of stream assets
and 13,118.76 acres of wetlands. The majority of these assets have been prepared in advance
of NCDOT permit needs and are ready for use as permits are issued.
The remaining sections in this report describe the current program status. The report is in-tended
to satisfy all reporting requirements as defined in G. S. 143- 214.13 and agreements with
USACE and NCDOT. EEP anticipates continuing progress in the year ahead on providing a
more holistic approach to mitigation, facilitating the delivery of projects that help to drive the
state’s economy, and restoring, enhancing and protecting the state’s wetlands, waterways and
natural areas for future generations.
____________________________ __________________
William D. Gilmore, PE, Director Date
ii.
I: EEP Programs
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program ( EEP) is an initiative within the N. C. Department
of Environment and Natural Resources ( NCDENR) that improves our environment while
facilitating economic development. EEP restores streams and wetlands where the
greatest need is by working with local and state partners, including willing landowners.
The N. C. Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) and other developers voluntarily use
EEP to move their projects forward in a timely and affordable manner.
EEP provides mitigation services through four different in lieu fee ( ILF) programs:
1) The NCDOT Stream and Wetland ILF Program ( hereafter referred to in
this document as the Memorandum of Agreement ( MOA) program);
2) The General Public Stream and Wetland ILF Program ( hereafter, the
Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) program);
3) The General Public Riparian Buffer ILF Mitigation Program; and
4) The General Public Nutrient Offset ILF Program.
Eligibility to participate in an EEP program is a joint decision made by the developer,
EEP and the regulatory agencies. Each of the mitigation programs operate as an ILF
program in which applicants make payments to EEP in lieu of providing mitigation
themselves, or by other means. Upon payment, EEP assumes the full legal responsibility
for planning, developing and implementing the required types and amounts of mitigation.
After successful payment, applicants are no longer liable for the mitigation requirement.
Additional details on these programs are included within this report.
1) MOA Program:
A 2003 MOA among NCDENR, NCDOT and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers outlines
procedures for how NCDOT utilizes EEP as an ILF program for NCDOT’s offsite stream
and wetland mitigation needs, and specifies performance metrics for the delivery of that
mitigation. In February of each year, NCDOT provides EEP with its mitigation request
in the form of a forecast of future impacts to aquatic resources for the seven- year
Transportation Improvement Program ( TIP) list. EEP secures the mitigation needed by
NCDOT following protocols outlined in the Tri- Party MOA. EEP uses Fund 2984 to
track payments and expenditures for this program.
2) MOU Program:
The general public MOU Stream and Wetland Program provides applicants of Section
404 Permits, Section 401 Water Quality Certifications, and/ or Coastal Area Management
Act permits the option to satisfy compensatory- mitigation requirements for wetland and
stream impacts in all 17 North Carolina river basins through payment into EEP's ILF
program. Protocols for mitigation delivery under this program are specified in an MOU
between NCDENR and USACE. Payments made into the Stream and Wetland ILF
Program are deposited into Fund 2981.
1
In FY 2007- 08, 189 customers made payments into the MOU Program. Stream and
Wetland ILF payments totaled $ 11,020,380. Of this amount, a total of 159 customers had
requirements from both USACE ( 404) and Division of Water Quality ( DWQ) ( 401), 24
customers had requirements from USACE only and eight customers had requirements
from DWQ only.
3) Riparian Buffer ILF Mitigation Program:
The Riparian Buffer ILF Mitigation Program is an option to meet compensatory-mitigation
requirements associated with riparian- buffer impacts in the Neuse, Tar-
Pamlico and Catawba river basins, and the Randleman Reservoir watershed in the upper
Cape Fear River basin. Payments are made to the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund
( Fund 2982) according to the regulatory schedule of fees for buffers.
In Fiscal Year 2007- 08, EEP received payments for 1,184,056 square feet ( 27.18 acres)
of buffer mitigation. At the close of the fiscal year, EEP had accepted responsibility for
506.06 acres of buffer- mitigation requirements cumulatively since the program’s
inception in the Cape Fear, Catawba, Neuse and Tar- Pamlico River basins.
4) Nutrient Offset ILF Program:
The Nutrient Offset Program is an option to meet compensatory mitigation requirements
associated with nutrient- offset requirements in the Neuse and Tar- Pamlico River basins.
Payments made into the Nutrient Offset ILF Program are deposited into Fund 2981- 9829.
During FY 2007- 08, nutrient- offset payments were made by 338 customers located in the
counties of Durham, Franklin, Johnston, Nash, Pitt, Wake and Wayne, and the
municipalities of Cary, Durham, Garner, Goldsboro, Greenville, Havelock, Kinston, New
Bern, Raleigh, Rocky Mount, Tarboro, Washington and Wilson. These payments were
for 293,850.01 pounds of nitrogen reduction and 715.74 pounds of phosphorus reduction.
Figure 1. Map of NC River Basins
2
II: Watershed Planning and Project Implementation
EEP’s enabling legislation ( NC 143- 218.8), its Tri- Party MOA and the new federal
compensatory- mitigation rules on compensating for losses of aquatic resources ( 33
CFR Parts 325 and 332, and 40 CFR Part 230) require EEP to implement watershed
planning- based restoration and preservation projects. These requirements reflect the
widely held position of water resource professionals that projects based on watershed
planning will provide the best environmental return on investment. Therefore, an
important focus of EEP continues to be the implementation of watershed restoration
and preservation projects based on environmental needs identified through watershed
planning. This is accomplished through high- level and detailed planning initiatives and
the coordination of project implementation in accordance with planning outcomes.
EEP conducts two main types of watershed planning:
1) River Basin Restoration Priority Planning ( high- level river
basin/ eight- digit CU scale); and
2) Local Watershed Planning ( detailed level, small watershed scale).
The products of EEP’s planning efforts are used to direct mitigation resources to areas of
need. For reasons outlined in Section V of the 2006- 2007 annual report
( http:// www. nceep. net/ news/ annualreport/ 2007/ EEP_ Annual_ Report_ 2006_ 2007. pdf),
not all EEP projects implemented in the first five years of the program have been
watershed planning- based projects. However, EEP’s goal is to implement all program
projects in targeted watersheds. This year EEP continued to make great strides toward
this goal through its Design- Bid- Build ( DBB) project- delivery process. Projects
generated through EEP’s Full Delivery ( FD) program have not shown the desired level of
congruence with planning targets. Consequently, in order to promote improvement in
this area, EEP recently changed its approach with regard to FD project development.
Where possible, EEP is only accepting projects contained within watershed targets
instead of providing incentives related to technical ratings for project proposals within
watershed targets. EEP will assess the success of this approach and determine whether
the stated goals are being reached and whether additional adjustments are necessary.
This section describes the status of EEP watershed- planning methods and assesses how
well the program’s project implementation corresponds with watershed priorities. It also
summarizes a survey conducted of participants in EEP Local Watershed Planning
initiatives. EEP strives to have local watershed plans and associated recommendations
fully implemented. Toward that end, EEP continues to work with local stakeholders and
funding programs to ensure that the plans not only generate projects to satisfy mitigation
needs, but also serve as a resource for communities working to implement watershed
improvements. This section highlights key partnerships with state and local entities
which are vital to EEP’s watershed- planning focus for project implementation, which
maximizes mitigation investments for the benefit of the state’s natural resources.
3
WATERSHED PLANNING
The purpose of watershed planning is to determine the best locations for watershed-restoration
projects based on analysis of watersheds’ needs for restoration and
protection. Simply put, it is putting watershed restoration and preservation projects
where they are most needed. This is done by conducting two types of planning – River
Basin Restoration Priority ( RBRP) planning and Local Watershed planning. For more
information about EEPs watershed planning, including watershed plan products
searchable by county or river basin, go to: http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ lwplanning. htm.
River Basin Restoration Priority Plans
RBRP planning is conducted in each of the 17 river basins in North Carolina. The
purpose of RBRP planning is to identify through data analysis and field verification those
watersheds that exhibit a combination of local resources, problems and opportunities, and
therefore serve as Targeted Local Watersheds ( TLWs) to focus project implementation
by EEP and other entities. TLWs represent those watersheds where restoration or
protection is most needed— for instance, watersheds that include streams with impaired
water quality and degraded habitat are often targeted. More information on EEP’s RBRP
planning process is available through EEP’s Policy, Process and Procedures Manual:
http:// www. nceep. net/ abouteep/ PPPM2/ Policies% 20and% 20Procedures/ PLN. PRO. 02.01.
01. pdf
EEP’s enabling statute requires that the RBRP planning takes place based on DWQ’s
Basinwide Planning update schedule. DWQ has changed its model for updating
basinwide watershed plans from once every five years to a continuous update of a
Web data layer with a biannual written report. EEP is adjusting procedures to deliver
river- basin planning products within the biannual timeframe.
The RBRP plans incorporate water quality information from DWQ Basinwide
Assessment Reports and Water Quality Plans, as well as input from local resource agency
professionals and the location of existing or planned watershed projects. RBRP Planning
updates also take advantage of newly acquired watershed datasets produced by the N. C.
Center for Geographic Information and Analysis ( CGIA) that profile the assets, problems
and baseline conditions of watersheds statewide. RBRP planning documents are posted
on the EEP Web site, searchable by river basin or county:
http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ lwplanning. htm.
In FY 2007- 08, EEP completed the Little Tennessee RBRP planning and updated
portions of the Catawba and Yadkin River Basin Restoration Priority Planning
documents. The Chowan, Catawba and Yadkin basins were scheduled to be completed in
December 2007, but have been postponed until December 2008 in order to incorporate
the new CGIA datasets. The data will also be used to update RBRP planning documents
in 2008- 2009, including the Broad, Cape Fear, Hiwassee, Lumber, New, Pasquotank,
Roanoke, Savannah, Watauga and White Oak.
4
Local Watershed Plans
Local Watershed planning merges TLWs identified in RBRP planning with anticipated
mitigation needs to determine where future mitigation investments can provide the
greatest benefit for the State of North Carolina. The development of a Local Watershed
Plans ( LWP) is typically a four- phase process: Preliminary Watershed Characterization
( Phase I), Detailed Assessment ( Phase II), Development of a Watershed Management
Plan including identification of potential project sites within a Project Atlas ( Phase III)
and Implementation of the Plan ( Phase IV). However, rapid or abbreviated plans are also
utilized when the mitigation- compliance timeline is compressed, the mitigation needs are
insufficient to justify an extensive planning investment, or detailed analyses are not
necessary to identify the most ecologically beneficial projects.
EEP watershed planners are responsible for evaluating data and local resources to
identify watersheds that demonstrate both the need for functional uplift and existing
restoration opportunities to satisfy mitigation needs. Detailed watershed evaluations
are conducted through the use of internal and external resources. External resources
include private environmental planning and engineering firms, DWQ, CGIA and
various not- for- profit organizations. Watershed planners coordinate with local
resource professionals, state and federal agencies, private consulting firms and EEP
project managers in the development and implementation of LWPs.
EEP staff is continuing work on LWPs across the state. Nine plans are underway and
in various stages of development and expected to be completed later in 2008 or 2009.
Appendix A( iii) presents a summary of ongoing LWPs; these are efforts that haven’t
yet resulted in a final Watershed Management Plan or Project Atlas ( listing of identified
restoration opportunities), but will do so within the next six to 18 months. Fact sheets
summarizing EEP’s Local Watershed planning efforts and links to associated reports
are available on EEP’s Web site: http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ lwplanning. htm.
Completed Local Watershed Plans
LWPs are defined by EEP as complete at the end of Phase III with the production of a
Watershed Management Plan and Project Atlas. To date, EEP has completed 27
watershed plans through Phase III. Phase IV focuses on outreach and implementation of
projects derived from LWPs and is therefore an ongoing process. LWPs are designed
such that they result in a suite of watershed- restoration recommendations, including but
not limited to mitigation opportunities that can be implemented by a myriad of public and
private entities over an extended period of time. Therefore, while EEP’s involvement in
implementation ebbs and flows based upon mitigation needs, many other entities
continue to pursue recommendations and projects that result from the Local Watershed
planning process. EEP is actively pursuing projects identified in many plans, previous
and current, in an effort to satisfy mitigation needs. To date EEP has implemented 51
projects worth more than $ 43 million in Local Watershed planning areas. ( See Appendix
A for a list of those projects).
EEP completed three Local Watershed planning efforts in FY 2007- 2008: Peachtree-
Martins Creek LWP in the Hiwassee 02 CU, Cove Creek LWP in the Broad 05 CU and
5
Lockwoods Folly LWP in the Lumber 07 CU.
Figure 2. Peachtree- Martins Creek Local Watershed Planning Area
roject fact sheets summarizing efforts on each of these plans and links to the
orresponding planning documents are included in Appendix A. A summary of all LWPs
ix A.
Pc
completed to date and the status of Phase IV efforts is also included in Append
Current information on EEP’s Local Watershed planning efforts is available on EEP’s
Web site by river basin or county: http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ lwplanning. htm.
New Local Watershed Planning Initiatives
This year EEP began work on four new Local Watershed planning initiatives:
Indian/ Howards Creek LWP ( Catawba 02 CU), Franklin to Fontana LWP ( Little
( Yadkin
urveyed participants in its Local Watershed planning to gauge how
tection needs of EEP and local
r
Tennessee 02 CU), Ararat River LWP ( Yadkin 01 CU) and Goose Creek LWP
05 CU). Fact sheets summarizing current planning activities for each of these plans are
included in Appendix A and available on EEP’s Web site. EEP identified one new LWP
initiative in Cape Fear 06 CU to begin in FY 2008- 09 based on forecasted NCDOT
mitigation needs.
Local Watershed Planning Survey Summary
In July 2008, EEP s
well the plans are meeting the restoration and pro
communities. LWPs provide an important function within EEP by identifying potential
stream- and wetland- mitigation projects, but their utility extends beyond this program to
communities that adopt and implement the recommendations included within the plan.
EEP surveyed stakeholders of completed and in- progress LWPs to determine the types of
activities occurring in Local Watershed planning areas that support improvement and
protection of watersheds. Survey participants included local government representatives,
resource professionals, private consultants and regulatory agencies, among others. EEP
also conducted follow- up phone interviews with stakeholders willing to provide furthe
6
input on their Local Watershed planning involvement. A summary of survey results is
included in Appendix A.
Using a Web survey tool, EEP sent a 14- question survey to 230 LWP stakeholders. EE
received 42 completed sur
P
veys, an 18- percent response rate. Of those that responded, 89
ercent felt that the local watershed planning process was successful or somewhat
t in
plement
lan recommendations. Stormwater management, land preservation, riparian- buffer
er
hin the planning process to increase the
robability of implementing watershed- improvement recommendations. Participants also
, survey
p
successful in identifying the needs of the watershed. Sixty- seven percent of stakeholders
indicated that they have been able to use the products of the LWP, most notably the
watershed- management plan, water- quality data and restoration targeting.
Survey results and follow- up interviews indicate that stakeholders continue to benefi
Local Watershed planning areas by successfully pursuing grant funding to im
p
reforestation, agricultural best management practices ( BMPs), and citizen outreach are
highlighted activities implemented by survey respondents. Funding sources for these
activities include 47 percent from the N. C. Clean Water Management Trust Fund
( CWMTF), local funding sources ( 30 percent), Agriculture Cost Share Program ( 27
percent) and Section 319 grants ( 25 percent). In addition, 20 percent of participants
stated that they are implementing watershed- improvement ordinances such as buff
requirements and stormwater runoff policies.
Suggestions for improvement of the Local Watershed planning process included
incorporating landowner involvement earlier wit
p
expressed concerns about the amount of time required to produce a plan. Overall
participants responded favorably to the Local Watershed planning process, with 77
percent stating that they would partner again with EEP on a Local Watershed planning
effort ( the remaining respondents were: " Yes, if things were changed" [ five respondents],
“ No” [ one respondent], " N/ A" [ three respondents]), with two not responding.
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
The primary purpose of EEP is to produce watershed restoration and preservation
and other BMPs) that meet regulatory mitigation
requirements with respect to type, quality and compliance schedule in the most cost-a.
tinue to be, critical to EEP’s
success in meeting mitigation needs throughout the state. For more details on the
df
projects ( stream, wetland, stormwater
effective way, while maximizing environmental return for the State of North Carolin
The maximization of environmental returns from implemented projects is achieved
through the watershed- planning- based approach.
EEP utilizes DBB and FD project- delivery methods to implement projects. Both of
these project- delivery methods have been, and con
different project delivery methods and the responsibilities of EEP staff for each, see
Section V of the FY 2006- 07 Annual Report:
http:// www. nceep. net/ news/ annualreport/ 2007/ EEP_ Annual_ Report_ 2006_ 2007. p
7
SYNERGIES BETWEEN WATERSHED PLANNING AND PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION
The foundation of comprehensive watershed restoration and protection is wate
planning. As EEP mature
rshed
s, more of the program’s restoration projects are correlated to
watershed goals. While a large amount of the mitigation credits currently managed by
m
s
EEP are reflective of watershed plans and targets, not all of the projects in the progra
are synchronized in this manner due to a number of factors, including projects that were
developed prior to the establishment of EEP, advanced mitigation timeline requirement
and reductions in MOA program mitigation needs. For more detailed information
regarding these factors see Section V of the FY 2006- 07 Annual Report:
( http:// www. nceep. net/ news/ annualreport/ 2007/ EEP_ Annual_ Report_ 2006_ 2007. pdf).
For many of the reasons outlined in the FY 2006- 07 Annual Report, EEP
to increase the percentage of projects implemented in watershed- planning areas utilizing
has continued
the DBB process. This year, 85 percent of projects implemented by EEP using the DBB
delivery process were located in watershed- planning areas ( See Figure 3). Fourteen
percent of the projects derived using the FD process were located in watershed- planning
areas.
Figure 3. Percentage of EEP Design Bid Build Projects Located in Planning Areas
0
20
40
60
80
100
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Project
Percentage
TLW TLW/ LWP
8
Figure 4. Design Bid Build Wetland Credits
54%
9%
37%
TLW
TLW/ LWP
OTHER
Figure 5. Design Bid Build Stream Credits
31% 34%
35%
TLW
TLW/ LWP
OTHER
EEP is committed to watershed- planning- based project delivery. However, as described
above, there are circumstances when EEP does allow and will continue to allow ( for both
DBB and FD) projects outside of the watershed- planning targets when the environmental
justification for such projects is substantial and consistent with watershed- planning
principles. Regardless, EEP in part measures performance through statistics that describe
how closely project locations line up with planning targets. The following figures
illustrate the synergies that have been achieved in the DBB program for wetland and
stream projects.
Projects delivered through the FD
program have not been as consistent
with watershed- planning targets as
would be desired ( 31 percent of
wetlands credits and 26 percent of
stream credits generated through FD
procurement are contained within
TLWs). EEP is committed to
improving the congruence of FD
projects and watershed- planning
targets. In the last few years, EEP has
increased the number of points given
to a project that is in a watershed
planning area during the technical
review of Requests for Proposals
( RFPs). EEP has found that this
incentive- based approach has not
eet
processes with the goal of maximizing watershed- planning- based
yielded the desired results. Therefore,
in the most recent round of RFPs, EEP
employed a new strategy in some areas
that required that FD projects be
located in TLWs in order to be
considered for contracting. EEP will analyze the results of the new approach and m
with FD providers to discuss those results. EEP continues to pursue the improvement of
both procurement
outcomes.
COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIPS
EEP relies heavily on collaborative partnerships w to
fulfill its mission of producing high- quality, cost- e
based on watershed planning. Local governments
watershed- planning and implementation process w
knowledge, landowner contacts, donation of easem n- EEP
funded watershed- restoration projects. State agenc
technical and local knowledge, landowner contact
and preservation partnerships and contracting capa
of those collaborative partnerships.
ith local, state and federal entities
ffective restoration and preservation
often provide invaluable input in the
ith respect to technical and local
ents and implementation of no
y partnerships provide resources,
s, shared data, watershed restoration
bilities. This section highlights a few
9
Local Governments/ Municipalities
as
s watershed- management challenges in
eir area and provide EEP with the tools needed to implement cost- effective projects
ore than 30 projects with 17
overnments, including the City of Durham, Mecklenburg County, the Town of
f
TF
EEP staff collaborate with local governments on a daily basis. This communication h
resulted in valuable partnerships that benefit both EEP and local stakeholders with
respect to technical capabilities, shared data, policy and technical guidance, and project
implementation. Often, the most degraded watersheds exist in urbanized or developing
areas where land costs are high and project design and/ or construction is complicated.
Collaborative efforts allow local partners to addres
th
where they are most needed. EEP has partnered on m
g
Mooresville, the City of Kinston and others ( see Appendix A). These partnerships have
resulted in the restoration and protection of more than 18 miles of stream and 50 acres o
wetlands worth over $ 32 million. In addition, watershed- planning efforts have provided
local governments with the ability to leverage grant monies from Section 319, CWM
and other funding sources in pursuit of the implementation of stormwater BMPs, land
protection and watershed- coordinator positions.
State and Federal Partnerships/ Collaboration
Clean Water Management Trust Fund
As recommend in the 2007 Dye Management Report
( http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ DYE_ 2007_ EEP_ CWMTF_ Study_ Final_ Report. pdf)
prepared for the North Carolina legislature, EEP and CWMTF are continuing to inc
coordination on enhancement and restoration efforts. In CWMTF’s 2008 grant
application cycle, EEP staff assisted CWMTF field representatives with field reviews of
proposed restoration projects. EEP staff also performed a review of all 2008 applicatio
to determine if projects occurred in watershed- planning areas, and if so, wrote letters of
support for those projects.
In addition to the above efforts, EEP and CWMTF are partnering within three wa
located in different regions of the state: Big Harris Creek ( Broad basin), Upper Rocky
River ( Yadkin basin), and Upper Neuse ( Neuse basin). EEP/ CWMTF project teams will
work together to develop recommendations on strategies that address aquatic- resource
issues through innovative project partnerships, educational outreach, and community
support of watershed issues. These recommendations will be presented to EEP and
CWMTF program executives. The goal is to augm
rease
ns
tersheds
ent each program’s resources, both
me and financial, to achieve targeted watershed benefits.
ivision of Soil and Water Conservation
h the Division of Soil and Water Conservation
to work with local Soil and Water
tion
ti
D
In August 2007, EEP signed a contract wit
( DSWC). By partnering with the DSWC, EEP is able
Conservation Districts ( SWCDs) throughout the state on stream- and wetland- restora
projects. Local SWCDs provide an important resource through their knowledge of farm
management strategies and agricultural BMPs as well as their relationships with
landowners within the watershed. In FY 2007- 08, EEP funded more than $ 100,000 of
10
agricultural BMPs, including cattle- exclusion fencing, wells and watering troughs in
association with stream- restoration projects, and has scoped an additional $ 300,000 on
additional projects. By partnering with SWCDs, EEP is able to restore degraded systems,
macroinvertebrate community data, fish community data, ambient water quality data,
a
her
imagery and species information, NHP identified
lso
s
pare
abitat quality in all of the state’s river basins.
recognizes
at WRC is uniquely qualified to provide these services because of its responsibilities
e
directly address sources of pollution and help ensure long- term project success while
furthering the water- quality improvement goals of both EEP and DSWC.
United States Geological Survey
EEP continued its cooperative support for U. S. Geological Survey ( USGS) gauging
station data collection in two of its LWP areas-- Fishing Creek in the upper Tar- Pamlico
River basin and White Oak in the White Oak River basin. The data from these stations
are used for integrated interpretation of instream conditions in conjunction with benthic
chemical water quality data, toxicity bioassay data, and in some cases for water quality
and quantity model calibration. These data are collected as a part of the USGS's national
network of gauging and water- quality monitoring stations. Specific data from the Fishing
Creek and White Oak gauging stations were analyzed and presented at the 2007 N. C.
Water Quality Forum held in Charlotte, as part of other ongoing research projects.
Natural Heritage Program
With funding provided by EEP, the N. C. Natural Heritage Program ( NHP) completed
statewide analysis to identify areas of high- quality habitat important to species sensitive
to landscape integrity. These high- quality habitats, or core areas, are primarily identified
based on functional considerations – response of species to habitat fragmentation – rat
than on rarity or, in the case of natural communities, exceptional quality.
Using data that included GIS, aerial
core areas that indicate where target species groups, or guilds, reside. The analysis a
identifies inter- core area connectors that serve as links between core areas and are likely
to support dispersal by guild members. Overall, NHP mapped 267 core areas, covering
15,483 square miles of priority habitat and a total of 83 inter- core connectors.
With the completion of the assessment, EEP gains an important tool to enhance both it
LWPs and RBRP planning. For LWPs, the assessment provides a means of ranking
conservation priorities for project implementation. For RBRPs, the assessment informs
planners of the abundance of quality and high- functioning forest and wetland habitat
within a river basin. This information is critical to gauging the assets that are present
within a river basin and, because the data is to be complete statewide, is ideal to com
h
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
In January 2006, the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission ( WRC) and EEP entered into
an MOA to establish a working relationship between the agencies. The WRC agreed to
complete stream- and wetland- associated restoration work, maintenance, monitoring and
research activities at specific, unique mitigation sites managed by EEP. EEP
th
and experience managing North Carolina’s fish and wildlife resources. To formalize th
11
agreement, WRC entered into a formal contract with EEP that covers the period from Jan
9, 2006 to Jan. 8, 2009.
.
h
out
orth Carolina Division of Water Quality Section 319 Grant Program
ers the Section 319 Grant Program,
e
g
0- foot stream restoration project. The Dye Branch Project,
cated in Iredell County, was identified as part of the Upper Rocky River/ Clarke Creek
r
dditional Watershed Management Partnerships
g with EEP
er tracts in the Wilson Creek watershed ( upper
Catawba basin) by the Foothills Conservancy [ consistent with goals of the
ver and Kerr
Scott Reservoir LWPs];
To date, EEP has tasked WRC with a variety of projects, including restoration and
maintenance activities. In FY 2007- 08, WRC had 11 active assignments, two of whic
were new authorizations, and WRC completed work on one request. EEP has placed a
major emphasis on closing out projects constructed under WRC’s previous agreement
with NCDOT and now assumed by EEP. These projects are all scheduled to be closed
by the end of 2009.
N
The Nonpoint Source Program of DWQ administ
which funds local jurisdictions and nonprofit organizations ( such as universities and
environmental education partnerships) to restore impaired waters and improv
management of problems such as stormwater runoff. EEP participated in the review of
applications to the Section 319 Grant Program by scoring proposals and attendin
interviews with applicants in person.
In addition, EEP received Section 319 funding to implement a stormwater BMP project
in association with a 3,00
lo
LWP and is located in an urban watershed that receives large amounts of stormwate
runoff. EEP completed the BMP installation in 2006 and is working with NCSU and
DWQ to collect water- quality data to evaluate the effectiveness of nutrient removal.
Construction of the stream- restoration project was completed in July 2008.
A
􀂾 Several stakeholder groups that have worked or are currently workin
LWP initiatives in Western North Carolina have utilized LWP products to support
their CWMTF applications for various non- mitigation watershed projects.
CWMTF grant awards approved in the summer of 2008 include the following
[ note: name of associated LWP effort in brackets]:
􀂃 Acquisition of riparian- buff
Lake Rhodhiss regional watershed planning effort, of which the Lower Creek
LWP is a part];
􀂃 Stormwater master planning and BMPs for the Town of Sparta in Alleghany
County ( New River basin), as identified in the Bledsoe Creek Watershed
Management Plan [ Little River and Brush Creek LWP];
􀂃 Funding of agricultural BMPs for water quality improvement in the upper
Yadkin River basin, to be implemented by the DSWC [ Ararat Ri
12
􀂃 Planning monies for development of the Ararat River Corridor Conservation
& Greenway Plan ( Surry County), to be administered through the Northwest
Piedmont Council of Governments [ Ararat River LWP];
􀂃 Restoration planning for the Town Creek watershed, in Clay County, to be
implemented by the Hiwassee River Watershed Coalition [ Peachtree- Martins
Creek LWP]; and
dec 8.
􀂾 in
per
Ten dmore area. A preliminary list of likely impassable
be f
alre s.
􀂾 EEP
watershed restoration strategies for the Lower Creek watershed. The Caldwell
Low
􀂾 EP continues to pursue non- traditional wetland mitigation credit in the Catawba
ch,
enefits to a natural wetland in a watershed where traditional wetland- restoration
􀂾
􀂾 EEP participated in a multi- party MOU to support the Chatham Conservation
am County.
􀂃 Little Tennessee stream- and riparian- restoration program, to be implemented
by the Macon County Soil and Water Conservation District [ Franklin to
Fontana LWP].
These CWMTF grant awards total more than $ 6 million. Additional funding
isions for EEP- supported watershed grants will be made in November 200
EEP partnered with U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, WRC, NCDOT, and others
forming a collaborative study of fish passages in streams that drain to the Little
nessee River near the Nee
road and driveway stream crossings was developed. Problematic crossings will
urther evaluated and prioritized for replacement. Project partners have
ady received funds to replace one to two priority crossing
has continued to work with the Lower Creek Advisory Team to implement
and Burke County SWCDs applied for and received a Section 319 grant to fund a
er Creek Watershed Coordinator for the next three years.
E
03050103 CU. The purpose of the effort is to seek a flexible mitigation approa
allowing EEP to receive credit for implementing BMPs that provide similar
b
opportunities are severely limited.
NCSUs Watershed Education for Communities and Officials received $ 199,000
in EPA Section 319 grant funds to pursue conservation and restoration in Rocky
River, an EEP LWP area where the plan was completed in 2005.
Partnership ( CCP). EEP entered into this partnership to work creatively with
other CCP participants to meet Chatham County’s conservation needs. CCP
began in 2007 as a proactive approach to better plan for growth in the county.
EEP’s Cape Fear Rocky River LWP is located in western Chath
􀂾 Chapel Hill and Carrboro partnered to receive $ 370,000 in Section 319 grant
funds to support restoration and BMP implementation in Bolin Creek, a
subwatershed within the Morgan and Little Creek LWP area.
13
Environmental Education and Outreach
EEP a
outreac
NCDEN nel hosted the
ast and crew of Aquakids, an award- winning TV show for young teens broadcast into
100 -
quality
North C s in
central
accessi sode
scheduled to air in late 2008 and may lead to further collaborations in the future.
EEP co EEP
restorat r Teachers), an
ternational program that distributes classroom- ready teaching aids to K- 12 instructors.
he materials promote responsible stewardship through an interdisciplinary water science
itigation sites serve as excellent
o
re
bout EEP projects.
st ff participated in a variety of opportunities for environmental education and
h during the past fiscal year, and participated with ongoing efforts of the
R Education and Outreach Working Group. In June, EEP person
c
million households nationwide. The Baltimore- based show concentrates on water
issues for its programming, and approached EEP about filming a segment in
arolina. For the episode, EEP staff took the Aquakids contingent to three site
North Carolina to demonstrate the impacts to water quality from livestock
ng rural streams, and EEP’s restoration efforts in such circumstances. The epi
is
ntinued to build upon efforts to engage and educate schools located near
ion projects. EEP promoted Project WET ( Water Education fo
in
T
and education program on water resources. EEP m
outdoor classrooms for multiple teaching components.
EEP also continued to improve its Web site, launching a series of updates and
reconfigurations in December in response to user input to an on- line survey. EEP is als
making progress toward the implementation of a GIS- based web portal in the coming
months. The improvements are designed to satisfy the desire of the regulatory
community for simple access to EEP restoration and monitoring plans and eventually will
be available to the general public. EEP staff is developing voice- thread Web sites
( collaborative, multi- media slide shows that invite public input) for mitigation projects,
promoting online interaction between EEP and individuals interested in learning mo
a
Finally, as a part of the program’s daily work processes, EEP continued to educate
landowners and municipal, county and state personnel about the program. Education
efforts also included presentations and exhibits for legislative committees, civic clubs, the
N. C. State Fair and public- and private- sector conferences throughout the year.
14
III: Financial Accounting, Cost Data and Property Acquisition
REVENUE, EXPENDITURES, AND ENCUMBRANCES
The figures and tables below depict expenditures and end- of- year balances for the MOA
Program ( NCDOT stream and wetland progr ), the Wetlands Restoration Program
Trust Fund, the MOU Program ( general public stream and wetland mitigation program),
and the buffer and nutrient offset programs. An accounting of beginning balances,
revenues, expenditures, cash balances, encum rances and unencumbered balances is
provided.
Revenues collected by EEP through its four mitigation programs are used to implement
restoration projects where they will provide maximum environmental benefits to the
state’s natural resources. A small part of EEP’s revenues is used to administer the
program. EEP receives no state appropriations ( some historic appropriations remain in
the Wetlands Restoration Program Trust Fund but will soon be exhausted).
Fund
Figure 6 provides an accounting of the MOA fund and applies to the mitigation
f the NCDOT, mitigation
roduction and payments are programmed on a cash- flow basis. As a result, EEP invoices
am
b
2984: MOA Program
program
supplied to the Department of Transportation. At the request o
p
NCDOT for the actual cost for the work being processed to include administration,
payments made to engineers, contractors, and full delivery providers.
Figure 6: MOA Program Fund 2984 Fiscal Year 2007- 08
Fund 2984 Actual Amounts
Beginning balance $ 16,099,120.68
Revenues $ 28,602,257.54
Expenditures $ 42,072,862.06
Ending Balance $ 2,628,516.16
Encumbrances $ 79,529,964.90
Future Yr. Obligations $ 76,901,448.74
$ 90,000,000.00
$ 40,000,000.00
$ 50,000,000.00
$ 60,000,000.00
$ 70,000,000.00
$ 80,000,000.00
Beg. Balance
Revenues
Expenditures
Ending Balance
$ 30,000,000.00
$ 0.00
$ 10,000,000.00
$ 20,000,000.00 Encumbrances
Future Year
Obligations
15
EEP invoices NCDOT on a quarterly basis and secures only those funds required to pay
anticipated operating costs for the upcoming quarter. Future year obligations are
guaranteed to be paid in accordance with an MOA between NCDOT and NCDENR. This
information is reported quarterly during routine invoicing processes. Also, EEP is
audited quarterly by the NCDOT Inspector General’s office and has been audited by the
Federal Highways Administration.
Fund 2980, Wetlands Restoration Program Trust Fund, is the repository for
appropriated dollars and was established by the General Assembly. In 1997, the General
Assembly provided a one- time initial appropriation of seed dollars for the former
Wetlands Restoration Program. Th ance for this fund is $ 14,683.61.
aining encumbra is ye ill be closed out sometime
the next fiscal yea
unds 2981, 2982, 2982- 9829: The MOU, Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset
rogram Funds
igure 7 below provi n LF general public wetland
nd stream restoration program storation ILF Program
982) and the Nutrient Offset Reduction ILF Program ( 2982- 9829).
Fund 2981, MOU ILF Program, is a voluntary, statewide receipt- based ILF program.
Land- disturbing activities that require Section 404 or Section 401 permits often require
e unencumbered bal
Rem nces will be paid th ar and this fund w
in r.
FPF
des an accounting of fu
( 2981), the Ri
ds for the MOU I
a parian Buffer Re
( 2
Figure 7: Funds 2981, 2982, 2982- 9829; Fiscal Year 2007- 08
$ 30,000,000.00
$ 35,000,000.00
$ 25,000,000.00 Beg. Balance
$ 5,000,000.00
$ 10,000,000.00
$ 15,000,000.00
$ 20,000,000.00 Revenues
Expenditures
Ending Balance
Encumbrances
Unencumbered
Balance
$ 0.00
Beg. Balance $ 31,421,790.14 $ 2,617,656.97 $ 5,385,257.95
Revenues $ 12,999,693.73 $ 1,318,121.64 $ 5,622,143.37
Expenditures $ 15,960,457.66 $ 827,401.67 $ 245,172.14
Ending Balance $ 28,461,026.21 $ 3,108,376.94 $ 10,762,229.18
Encumbrances $ 19,265,042.20 $ 1,314,576.34 $ 1,473,270.57
Unencumbered Balance $ 9,195,984.01 $ 1,793,800.60 $ 9,288,958.61
2981 2982 2982- 9829
16
compensatory mitigation as specified by USACE or DWQ. The general public,
commercial and residential developers, as well as non- NCDOT governmental agencies
including municipalities and military installations, may produce the mitigation
themselves, purchase credits from a private mitigation bank, or request mitigation from
EEP. Upon acceptance and payment, EEP provides the off- site compensatory mitigation
to satisfy regulatory requirements. The work may consist of reestablishment of wetlands
and reconstruction or enhancement to degraded streams. This fund helps the general
public by providing a service that is cost- effective and simplifies the permitting
processes.
EEP sought fee revisions for this fund as costs were not in line with the current fee
schedule. New fees have been established recently and the updated fees can be referenced
at the EEP Web site: http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ fee. htm.
Fund 2982, Riparian Buffer Fund, is the repository for monies related to the state’s
Riparian Buffer ILF Program for the Neuse, Tar- Pamlico, and parts of the Catawba and
Cape Fear River basins. Applicants seeking permits for unavoidable impacts to protected
buffers along stream systems may elect to produce the mitigation themselves, purchase
redits from a private mitigation banks or pay EEP to produce the mitigation and satisfy
on-e
uctions from a private mitigation bank or pay a fee to EEP to produce the
itigation. The types of projects produced by EEP may consist of best management
the
on of mitigation sites.
c
permit needs. Revenues collected are used to contract engineering, construction, land
acquisition and long term protection of mitigation sites. The types of projects produced
consist of reestablishment and protection of buffers ( primarily involving planting
vegetation) along degraded streams and river banks in the protected basin.
Fund 2982- 9829, Nutrient Offset Fund, is the repository for funds of the Nutrient
Offset ILF Program. This program has been in place for the Neuse River basin since
1998. In March 2006, the Tar- Pamlico River basin was added. Applicants seeking
permits for construction related impacts to uplands may elect to undertake additional
site nutrient reduction measures to meet nutrient reduction requirements, purchas
nutrient red
m
practices or vegetated buffers that will reduce nitrogen and phosphorous loading into
river basins and estuaries. Revenues collected are used to contract engineering,
construction, land acquisition and secure long term protecti
Based on a study commissioned by the General Assembly and conducted by RTI
International, the legislature set the fees for the Nutrient Offset ILF Program effective
September 1, 2007. The fees can be referenced at http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ fee. htm.
COST OF MITIGATION DELIVERY
Total project costs are the sum of costs associated with multiple project steps including
land acquisition; project design; project construction; maintenance; monitoring for
project success; and long- term stewardship of the perpetually protected prop
erty. In
ddition a small amount of program monies are associated with funding staff to oversee
the contracting, awards, project delivery and administration. All design, construction and
a
17
monitoring activities ( which make up the vast majority of program expenditures) are
outsourced to private- sector companies. EEP employs two primary outsourcing metho
for its project procurement:
􀁹 Full Delivery ( FD)- requests for proposals ( RFPs) are issued for specific types,
amounts and locations of compensatory mitigation and one single contrac
issued for the entire project from acquisition to monitoring. The types of firm
participating in this process include private mitigation bankers and enginee
firms with construction contracting capabilities.
􀁹 Design- Bid- Build ( DBB) - EEP acquires the project site through the S
Property Office, contracts for design through a private environmental
ds
t is
s
ring
tate
consulting firm, bids out the construction to private contractors, and employs a
od
g
verage per- unit costs of project implementation for the last fiscal year have been
ts at an average of $ 41,817.60 per unit.
The fee s
mitigatio
rule maki
costs pres 82- 9829), fees were set by the
N. C. G ver
Basin and rus in the
Tar- Paml
costs con w
nutrient r
implement the least cost reduction projects, and that EEP transition to an actual cost
ethod for assessing payment to participate in the program. A progress report on
ed to the General Assembly in September of 2008
consulting firm for the monitoring. This is the standard contracting meth
administered through the Department of Administration and the State Buildin
Commission.
EEP Project Costs for FY 2007- 08
A
calculated by examining both FD and DBB contracts.
In FY 2007- 08, EEP obtained:
• 66,748 total stream mitigation units at an average of $ 274 per unit;
• 4.65 total riparian wetland mitigation units at an average of $ 43,406 per unit;
• 2.85 total non- riparian wetland mitigation units at an average of $ 40,718 per unit; and
• 31.96 total buffer acre uni
chedule over the past year was below actual costs for the wetland and stream
n program ( 2981) and the nutrient offset program ( 2982- 9829). EEP, through
ng, was able to increase fees for its ILF program to levels more in line with
ented above. For the Nutrient Offset Program ( 29
eneral Assembly to be $ 28.35 per pound nitrogen for projects in the Neuse Ri
$ 21.67 per pound nitrogen and $ 28.62 per tenth of pound for phospho
ico River basin. These fees were set based on an analysis of buffer restoration
ducted by RTI International. The General Assembly also required that all ne
eductions take place in the same CU as the impact payment, that EEP
m
transitioning to actual cost was provid
( http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ FINAL_ ERC_ NO_ Progres_ Report_ 09- 12- 08. pdf).
EEP continues to take measures to produce cost effective mitigation through such items
actors on wetland and stream construction techniques. As
nderstanding improves, it translates to increased competition within a larger bidding
as training of construction contr
u
pool.
18
Cost Analysis of Private Mitigation Banks
Reporting requirements of G. S. 143 214.13 require EEP to compare the cost of
ix
lanning,
d
ull Delivery Program
stream and/ or wetland). Providers are required to submit both a technical
roposal and a cost proposal for each prospective submittal. The technical proposal
etails: 1) the experience, qualifications and financial stability of the firm submitting the
e site that make it suitable for restoration;
n, both
.
e
ate, develop and implement a restoration plan, and monitor the project for five years to
he restoration meets established success criteria.
for
12,136 and 33.5 riparian wetland
itigation units at a cost of $ 1,205,125.00.
s,
g.
mitigation between the EEP projects and private mitigation banks. To obtain the data
necessary to accomplish this task, a Web- based survey requesting restoration cost
information was sent to the sponsor of each approved bank in North Carolina. Append
C includes a listing of banks that were requested to respond, and a copy of the survey is
included. There were no responses from private mitigation banks for FY 2007- 08.
Contracts
The science of natural- systems restoration has advanced considerably over the past
decade. Because of this, and in addition to regulatory requirements, watershed p
design and monitoring approaches continue to evolve. As such, EEP utilizes multiple
contracting methods to address the myriad of tasks necessary to plan, implement an
monitor natural systems restoration projects.
F
The FD Program procures compensatory mitigation by issuing RFPs through the
Department of Administration. Each RFP specifies the river basin and CU within which
mitigation is being sought, and the amount and type of mitigation needed ( i. e., riparian
buffer,
p
d
proposal; 2) the geomorphologic features of th
and 3) the conceptual plan for restoring the site to a more natural, stable conditio
physically and biologically. The cost proposal provides a unit cost ( i. e., per buffer
mitigation unit, stream mitigation unit or wetland mitigation unit) for the submittal
Qualifying proposals are evaluated based on the technical merits of the proposed
restoration and the overall per- unit cost. Firms associated with selected proposals enter
into a contract with EEP to convey a conservation easement on the project area to th
st
verify that t
There are currently 21 firms that have FD contracts with EEP, indicating widespread
participation by the environmental consulting/ mitigation banking community. In FY
2007- 08, EEP entered into seven new FD contracts ( with five different FD providers)
30,532 stream mitigation units at a cost of $ 7,1
m
Design- Bid- Build Program
EEP utilizes On- call Design and Consulting Services Authorizations to contract with
private design and consulting firms for professional services for all stages of project
development including: watershed planning, environmental resource investigation
restoration site design and construction management, and post- construction monitorin
The use of on- call consultants is authorized by the State Building Commission as
described in the N. C. Administrative Code ( see 01 NCAC 30D). Since 2002, the State
19
Building Commission has approved four on- call authorizations to EEP as described
following table:
Table 1. NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program On- Call
Authorizations
in the
Authorization Date Effective
# of Firms
Authorized
Total
Authorization
2002 Oncall 4/ 18/ 02 - 4/ 17/ 04 15 $ 10,500,000
2004 Oncall 4/ 1/ 04 - 3/ 31/ 06 22 $ 15,400,000
2005 Oncall 8/ 23/- 05 – 8/ 22/ 07 21 $ 14,700,000
2006 Oncall 12/ 12/ 06 – 12/ 11/ 08 31 $ 21,700,000
Design and Construction
EEP also utilizes NCDENR and federal agencies to provide planning, design,
-
e
l Contracted Services
construction and monitoring services. This use of these agencies is authorized by
NCDENR as described in the N. C. Administrative Code ( see N. C. General Statue 143
59).
Total Contracted Services
In FY 2007- 08, 61 new design and construction contracts were awarded. The total valu
of new design and construction contracts was $ 9,301,008.06.
Table 2. Tota
Fiscal Year 2007- 08
Total Watershed and Project Planning Services ( 12) $ 404,537.25
Total Design Services ( 10) $ 1,984,386.00
Total Construction Services ( 15) $ 3,872,912.00
Total Maintenance and Repair Services ( 6) $ 459,725.60
Total Monitoring Services ( 18) $ 2,579,447.21
Total ( 61) $ 9,301,008.06
iscal Year 2007 ndors
$ 41,685,254.38 for FY 2007- 08. Figure 8 ( top of the next
ction, but
f
F - 08 Payments to Ve
Payments to vendors totaled
page) illustrates payments by contract type: Full Delivery, Design and Constru
does not include any costs for property acquisition. Appendix E provides a listing o
payments by contract type and vendor.
20
Figure 8: Fiscal Year 2007- 08 Design Bid Build - Contract Payments by Type
Construction, 15%
Design, 14%
Full Delivery, 71%
PROPERTY ACQUISITION: FY 2007- 08
associated with
preservation and restoration projects, totaling more than 1,370 acres. Two of the
acquisitions were outright purchases, three were construction easements, one was an
allocation of a conservation easement from another state agency, one was an access
easement, one was a modification of an existing conservation easement, and 72 were
acquisitions of conservation easements. All properties that closed between July 1, 2007
and June 30, 2008 are shown in Appendix E ( ii). Acreages are included for sites that
have been surveyed to date. Landowners have formally agreed to give EEP the right to
acquire an easement or property for all sites listed in Appendix E ( iii), Properties
Optioned.
operties acquired since the inception of the
than 46,700 acres have been purchased or
During this fiscal year, the State Property Office closed on 80 parcels
Cumulative Properties is an inventory of all pr
Wetlands Restoration Program in 1996. More
donated. The full inventory of these acquisitions is presented in Appendix E ( i).
21
IV: Program Inventory Status
his section provides detailed tables and charts regarding mitigation production. EEP
acks and is accountable for mitigation production in 17 river basins, 54 CUs and for 15
itigation types.
TREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION INVENTORY
T
tr
m
S
t the end of FY 2007- 08, EEP had produced or inherited 1,666,838 linear feet of stream
nd 21,116 acres of wetland mitigation, in addition to High Quality Preservation ( HQP)
ssets. The table below is a summary of mitigation assets by river basin and type. The
ata are also summarized by the primary mitigation program that funded the development
f the assets ( MOU or MOA programs).
Table 3: EEP Total Assets FY
Aa
a
do
07 – 08
22
Note: EEP’s mitigation assets and requirements are accounted for on a CU basis, not by
river basin. This table, along with Table 5, is intended as a summary. A complete listing
of these tables by river basin and CU can be found in the EEP’s Fourth Quarterly Report
to USACE, FY 2007- 2008, located on the EEP Web site at:
http:// www. nceep. net/ news/ eeppublications. htm.
Current Inventory of Asset Credits
Table 5 on the following page lists net- asset credits by river basin for FY 2007- 08. These
are the current inventory assets after application of credits to compensatory- mitigation
requirements. Remaining asset credits are also summarized by credit amounts in the
MOA and MOU programs. Assets in this table have been converted to restoration and
restoration- equivalent credits. Restoration equivalent credits are credits that can only be
used to offset mitigation requirements after the 1: 1 impact to restoration requirement has
been met. HQP gross and net assets are summarized in the next section.
At the end of FY 2007– 08, EEP had net inventory assets of both restoration and
restoration equivalent of:
• Stream: 671,001.03 credits;
• Riparian: 2,850.65 credits;
• Nonriparian: 6,697.47 credits; and
• Coastal marsh: 130.08 credits.
Total net inventory assets are the sum of Table 5 ( Net Inventory of Asset Credits) below.
These inventory assets represent progress that EEP has achieved to produce mitigation in
advance of permits. These mitigation assets are available to offset future permit
requirements, especially for NCDOT. The advancement of mitigation ahead of permitted
impacts is environmentally preferable and is an important tenet of the agreement among
NCDOT, NCDENR and USACE, which has allowed NCDOT to move forward with
about $ 4.8 billion in road- development projects without delays associated with
compensatory mitigation since 2003.
23
Table 4: EEP Net Inventory of Asset Credits, FY 07- 08
River Basin
Stream Restoration
Stream Restoration
Equivalent
Riparian Restoration
Riparian Restoration
Equivalent
Nonriparian Restoration
Nonriparian Restoration
Equivalent
Coastal Marsh
Restoration
Coastal Marsh
Restoration Equivalent
Broad 68,858 1,330.80 11.40 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cape Fear 110,204 3,698 394.39 224.70 836.94 192.39 8.99 42.88
Catawba 30,836 39 7.24 2.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Chowan 12,249 1,217 94.73 3.00 4.99 2.00 0.00 0.00
French Broad 76,155 1,978 9.74 8.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hiwassee 6,865 1,700 3.53 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Little Tennessee 9,890 3,084 57.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lumber 8,163 350 51.98 18.19 567.97 60.28 0.00 0.00
Neuse 32,754 680 355.86 438.94 1,477.94 1,110.08 0.00 0.00
New 23,311 3,633 10.19 6.18 0.00 2.38 0.00 0.00
Pasquotank 15,578 0 393.04 21.25 1,124.70 30.76 1.51 35.91
Roanoke 43,836 2,551 143.67 105.92 115.46 685.00 0.00 0.00
Savannah 4,342 608 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00
Tar- Pamlico 29,312 0 121.04 100.67 234.71 89.64 0.24 37.92
Watauga 2,706 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
White Oak 20,080 401.98 19.10 2.01 83.08 48.10 2.64 0.00
Yadkin 143,867 10,726.80 214.73 29.56 15.01 10.73 0.00 0.00
Grand Total 639,004 31,997.30 1,888.59 962.06 4,465.79 2,231.68 13.38 116.71
Grand Total
MOU 29,988 1,023.80 154.20 42.41 47.90 52.49 3.27 0.24
Grand Total
MOA 609,016 30,973.50 1,734.39 919.65 4,417.89 2,179.19 10.11 116.47
STATEWIDE STATUS OF MOU AND MOA STREAM AND WETLAND
PROGRAMS
The fo ing graph rovid tewid umma tus o e MO MO
progra at the end FY 2 8. The aphs depict EEP current g sset
mitigation requirem s, out ng m emen nd p d fu
mitigation needs in its th EP exp to pr de over next years ease
note that EEP tracks credits and credit r ireme by prog ( MOU or MOA), by
im ion credits are a itigation
t n CU o , and within program unless the r ry s ha
a therwis e gra fle tate ict EP gram
g dits) and en ce m ion r ements are typ betw one
llow
ms
s p
of
ent
cred
e a sta
007- 0
standi
at E
e s
gr
itigation requir
ects
equ
ry sta
ovi
nts
f th
ts, a
the
ram
A and
ross a
rojecte
two
U
s,
ture
. Pl
pact type, and by wate
ype, w
rshed CU. All mitigat pplied within m
ithi
o
f impact egulato
ur
agencie
’
ve
pproved e. Thes phs re ct the s wide p e of E s pro matic
ains ( cre requirem ts. Sin itigat equir ically een
24
to two times as larg tual tted i ts, th ual lo are a xima ne-h
s th nitud equ
Figure 9 displays the status of stream re ents ssets uced both
M OA p s instituted 1,534,937.27 credits of stream
m and acc itiga equ 108 s — epres
o llion ad stream ed ad m n h n dev ed
for future mitigatio s as per op ag nts O MO
m program tan quir s equ ,919 ts ( low f
f escriptio
Fi Sta P Str Mitig ogr Credi
e as ac permi mpac e act sses ppro tely o
alf to two- third e mag e of r irements shown.
quirem and a prod ( for the
OU and M rograms). Currently EEP ha
itigation epted m tion r irements of 485, credit this r ents
ver one mi vanced
n
cr its. The
e
vanced
re
itigatio
o
as bee
U
elop
need the rating eme f the M and A
itigation s. Outs ding re ement al 25 credi see be or
urther d n).
gure 9: tus of EE eam ation Pr am in ts
1,534,937
485,108
25,919
908,924.00
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
Credits
1,200,000
1,600,000
1,400,000
Stream
EEP Stream Assets
EEP Mitigation Requirements
EEP Outstanding Stream Requirements
Future Requirements
The generation of mitigation credits in advance of mitigation requirements is a foundin
principle of the MOA program. The advanced mitigation currently available in the
program is evidence that EEP is succeeding on this front. However, mitigation demand
over the next five years is expected to be very high. As shown in the Figure 9, NCDOT
and EEP are projecting mitigation needs of 908,924 stream credits over the next five
years. The majority of this mitigation need is related to NCDOT’s programmed TIP
projects and the mitigation- advancement schedule outlined in the Tri- Party MOA.
g
utstanding requirements represent mitigation needs that do not match ( type or CU
cation) invento ding
requirements which are detailed
O
lo ried assets. EEP has strategies in place to meet the outstan
in EEP’s quarterly reports at www. nceep. net. Section V
of this report contains additional compliance information.
25
Figure 10 displays the status of the wetland requirements and assets produced ( MOU and
MOA programs). Currently EEP is managing instituted assets of 13,118.76 wetland
credits with current requirements equaling 11,760.66 credits. The majority of credits
originated from the NCDOT mitigation program that existed prior to EEP’s formation.
These unused assets were transferred to EEP to be managed within the MOA program for
NCDOT’s future mitigation needs. Currently, outstanding requirements equal 15.96
wetland credits. As shown in the graph, NCDOT and EEP are projecting additional
mitigation needs of 2,791.28 credits over the next five years. On a statewide level, EEP
has achieved success for advance mitigation. However, much of the current advance
mitigation is focused in particular CUs, whereas the mitigation needs are spread more
evenly across the state. Thus, while some CUs have already achieved advanced
mitigation, others will require additional wetland- credit development over the coming
years.
Figure 10: Status of EEP Wetland Program in Credits
13,118.76
14,000.00
8,000.00
10,000.00
12,000.00
EEP Assets
EEP Mitigation Requirements
EEP Outstanding Wetland Requirements
Future Requirements
2,000.00
4,000.00
6,000.00
2,791.28
1,170.66
15.96
0.00
Wetland
Statewide Status of Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset ILF Programs
The status of the Riparian Buffer ILF Program is illustrated in the table below. This
program is 100% compliant and has provided all current buffer requirements . EEP has
advanced riparian buffer credits of 34.59 in Cape Fear, 23.13 in Catawba, 106.73 in
Neuse, and 44.57 in Tar- Pamlico. Of this, 27.61 acres of payments ( mostly in the Neus
have already been received and will be due in the future.
e)
Table 5. Riparian Buffer ILF Program Status FY 2007- 08
26
The status of the Nutrient Offset ILF Program is shown
in the table below. Nutrient reductions were
completely met in the Tar- Pamlico basin for nitrogen
and phosphorus, but not in the Neuse River basin. In
2006, a revised increased fee schedule was authorized
via rulemaking by the Environmental Management
Commission. The revised fee schedule was, however,
reverted by the General Assembly while it completed a
cost study. During this period of time, EEP suspended
procurement of new nutrient- offset projects that exceeded the legislated rates.
Table 6. Nutrient Offset ILF Program Status FY 2007- 08
ects during this time could have
esulted in the complete depletion of the funds within this program without satisfying the
equired reduction 2006- 07 as nearly
3 percent
elow- cost fees. Currently, a revised fee has been passed by the legislature. These fees,
hile lower than previously authorized by the EMC, are sufficient, and EEP has begun
rocurement of projects with an expectation to meet requirements over the next two
years. EEP believes that most BMP- type ( e. g. stormwater BMP’s, constructed wetlands,
ts will not be fundable under the current fee schedule,
w
projects. Consequently, EEP expe f
riparian- buffer projects with a few
The suspension was necessary because collected fees during FY 2005- 06 through FY
2006- 07 were below the projected costs of implementing stormwater wetland and
riparian buffer nutrient- offset projects. Implementing proj
rr
in nutrients. This problem was magnified during FY
4 of the program’s total historical requirements were paid during FY 2006- 07 at
b
wp
etc.) nutrient- reduction projec
particularly since past payments ere below cost of BMPs or riparian- buffer restoration
cts that most new projects will be composed o
select stormwater BMPs and constructed wetlands.
27
V: Stream and Wetland Compliance
OA Stream
t the close of FY 2007- 08, the MOA program had achieved tremendous success in
stablishing advance mitigation as prescribed by the Tri- Party MOA. The amount of
dvance mitigation established within the program is summarized in the table below.
or the MOA program, stream compliance was 95.89 percent, riparian wetlands
ompliance was 98.80 percent, nonriparian wetlands compliance was 98.88 percent and
oastal marsh wetlands compliance was 100 percent. These figures represent increased
M and Wetland Compliance
Aea
Fc
c
compliance in each of these mitigation categories from the previous year. Table 5
displays requirements in credits, credits applied, and resulting compliance.
Outstanding requirements represent mitigation needs that do not match ( type or CU
location) inventoried assets. The magnitude of outstanding stream mitigation was 9,478.6
credits. The magnitude of outstanding riparian- wetland mitigation was 1.57 credits. A
complete listing of MOA permits and requirements not in full compliance and the
corresponding EEP CU Action Strategies can be found in the EEP’s Fourth Quarterly
Report, located on the EEP Web site.
Table 7. MOA Program Compliance
MOA Program
Stream
( credits)
Ripararian
( credits)
Nonriparian
( credits)
Coastal Marsh
( credits)
Total
Wetlands
( credits)
Mitigation Due 230,471.20 131.37 418.24 1.76 551.37
Mitigation Met 220,992.60 129.79 417.73 1.76 549.29
Mitigation Not Met 9,478.6 1.574 0.506 0 2.08
Compliance 95.89% 98.80% 99.88% 100.00% 99.62%
MOU Stream and Wetland Compliance
The MOU program experienced a similar degree of success during FY 2007- 08. As of
June 30, 2008, the MOU program had 988 total requirements. Of these, 956 are in full
compliance, seven have partial compliance and 25 are in non- compliance. Therefore the
EEP has 96.8 percent of all MOU requirements in compliance, 0.7 percent in partial
compliance and 2.5 percent in non- compliance. Of these non- compliant requirements, 23
were related to wetlan requirements. As in
the MOA program, ou eds that do not
match ( type or CU location) inventoried asse . Table 6 on the next page summarizes the
met, mitigation not met and compliance.
d requirements, and two were related to stream
tstanding requirements represent mitigation ne
ts
MOU program’s mitigation due, mitigation
28
Table 8. MOU Program Compliance
MOU ( credits) ( credits) ( credits) Marsh
( credits)
Wetlands
( credits)
Stream Ripararian Nonriparian Coastal Total
Mitigation Due 254,636.99 399.97 218.85 0.47 619.29
Mitigation Met 238,196.45 392.67 212.48 0.27 605.41
Mitigation Not Met 16,440.54 7.30 6.38 0.20 13.88
Compliance 93.54% 98.17% 97.09% 57.54% 97.76%
A complete listing of the MOU permits and requirements not in full compliance and the
ategies can be found in the EEP’s Fourth Quarterly
eport, located on the EEP Web site.
corresponding EEP CU Action Str
R
29
VI: Monitoring and Research
MONITORING
The EEP Monitoring Section is focused on four primary areas: 1) oversight of annual
onitoring for all restoration projects; 2) support to the Design/ Construction Section
oncerning maintenance/ repair for all restoration projects; 3) data management and
nalysis; and 4) project and program improvement.
fiscal year 2007- 2008, EEP had 238 projects ( both DBB and FD) in some phase of
onitoring, closeout, or long- term management. Most projects were in monitoring phases
f year 1 through 5. These projects totaled 876,874 linear feet of stream, and 13,401
cres of wetland restoration, enhancement, and preservation.
onitoring reports for all DBB projects are currently published on the EEP Web site at:
ttp:// www. nceep. net/ business/ monitoring/ Monitoring_ report_ web/ Projects_ in_ Monitori
mc
a
In
moa
Mhn
g. htm. It is anticipated that monitoring reports for FD projects will be posted before the
nd of calendar year 2008.
onitoring Results and Trends
hen reviewing stream- restoration projects, staff examines four types of geomorphic
ata: channel dimension ( cross sections), profile ( thalweg surveys), substrate ( particle
ze distributions), and engineered structure stability. The assessment of overall channel
success” is based on the consideration of these four metrics. However, it is important to
eep in mind that stream systems are dynamic, and are subject to perturbations of the
ontributing watershed and extreme weather conditions.
egetative success defined by the regulatory community requires standards of stem
ounts from year 1 through year 5 of monitoring with a minimum of 260 stems per acre
rviving at year 5. Hydrologic success criteria for wetlands is tied to a continuous
ercent saturation or inundation period during the growing season compared to the
ccess criteria and/ or compared to the reference wetland.
onsidering all the projects in an active monitoring stage, they showed collectively a
reater than 90% success for stream geomorphic criteria, vegetative success criteria, and
etland hydrologic success. This is a slight improvement from last year’s statistics.
Monitoring Related Acti
Beyond standard production activities, progress and accomplishments during FY 2007- 08
hree main areas: 1) new or refined data tools or data management
roducts; 2) guidance and policy documentation; and 3) training/ information
of
t or
The
or significant refinements of existing
ocuments) related to major project deliverables, asset verification, digital submission
e
M
Wd
si
“
kc
Vc
su
p
su
Cg
w
vities
revolved around t
p
dissemination. The first category included advancements in the standardization
scoping and financial data related to monitoring activities, and the developmen
refinement of geodatabases related to stream- assessment and stream- reference data.
second involved the production of new documents (
d
30
formatting, decision frameworks for project selection, monitoring and remediation,
quality control related to construction and data collection. The third included training for
program providers and staff, which revolved around optimization of reach- treatm
approaches, standardization of monitoring practices, Web po
and
ent
sting of project documents,
and practices that reflect consideration of project closeout ( validation) at each project
phase.
MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS
Vegetation and Easement Maintenance
ce new standard informal contract templates that can
o
ve
ss. Preventative cost- saving
easures, along with corrective actions, may include herbicide application, replanting,
k
EEP staff has collaborated to produ
be applied to relatively small herbicide treatment and replanting contracts. Such
contracts for vegetation- driven maintenance are becoming increasingly necessary due t
easement encroachment, low stem- survival rates, and exotic- invasive plant infestations.
Once finalized and implemented, the new contract templates and supporting documents
will facilitate the management of contracts structured around preventative and correcti
measures for projects exhibiting a lack of vegetation succe
m
installation of easement boundary markers, reseeding, pruning and minor stream ban
repair.
PROJECT AND PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT RESEARCH
Vegetation Monitoring and Data Management
ous
ncoordinated vegetation monitoring methods to a refined data- management system that
nd federal guidelines, the 2008 annual CVS- EEP
ill not only improve the compatibility between prescribed species and site- specific
nvironmental variables ( i. e., soil type, elevation, slope, aspect, and hydrology), the
ficient and cost- effective than having designers
ather potentially misleading reference data for every project. Once the reference data
Fine tuning of the Carolina Vegetation Survey ( CVS)- EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation has continued and all new projects are required to utilize the new method as
outlined in the EEP mitigation- plan template. To facilitate this transition from numer
u
complies with current scientific a
Vegetation Workshop was conducted. During this two- day workshop, the majority of the
on- call firms and full- delivery providers were given comprehensive training necessary for
all aspects of applying the protocol, from mitigation- plan development to data delivery.
Consequently, an increasing percentage of all the 2008 EEP projects will have vegetation
monitoring data that is processed, summarized and delivered in an efficient automated
manner.
Vegetation Target Community Design Tools:
Through the collaboration between EEP and the CVS, tools derived from high- quality
natural community data are being developed with the potential to greatly improve species
lists and various other types of information pertaining to the restoration- target
communities that have traditionally been utilized by restoration designers. The resulting
tools w
e
methods for data delivery will be more ef
g
31
system is functional, some immediate reduction in design costs associated with reference
ring
e
d
a
y report to the regulatory agencies for review. The summary report is a synthesis
nd distillation of seven years worth of project data designed to provide an overall
ere submitted and
pproved for regulatory close- out during this fiscal year. The eight projects accounted
ement and preservation, and 49 acres
s
ithin a watershed context;
• increasing project success to reduce maintenance costs and the mitigation ratio;
• reducing the cost of monitoring through use of functional methods and other
lude:
• Carolina Vegetation Survey ( UNC, R. Peet and NCSU, T. Wentworth); and
nce standards for vegetation assessment ( ECU, R. Rheinhardt
t).
data collection can be expected, along with a much more substantial and gradual expense
reduction associated with increased planting- plan success over subsequent monito
years.
Project Closeout Activity
All projects conducted for the purpose of mitigation must be closed out once the
monitoring period is over. The purpose of closeout is to have regulatory validation on th
number and types of mitigation credits finally provided by the project. Once the require
monitoring period is complete and the project is deemed successful, EEP staff submits
summar
a
performance summary and rationale for closeout. Eight projects w
a
for 18,257 linear feet of stream restoration, enhanc
of wetland restoration, enhancement and preservation.
Research Program- Project Improvement
During FY 2007- 08, EEP has continued the research program begun in FY 2006- 07, and
continued or completed research begun in FY 2005- 06. The purpose of the research
program is to provide project- level and programmatic review and evaluation as feedback
to other EEP sections, and to help EEP fulfill MOA commitments. The goal is to
improve EEP effectiveness by increasing project success and reducing costs. Our
objectives are:
• improving cost- effective selection among project alternatives and design option
w
programmatic improvements; and
• helping to define a sound scientific basis for implementing new federal
regulations for compensatory mitigation, especially ecological performance
standards.
EEP research works through partnerships with state, local and federal government
agencies, universities, and non- governmental organizations. The program encompasses
three broad focus areas: functional assessment, catchment studies and restoration
methods.
Projects in the functional assessment focus area will improve the assessment of stream
and wetland condition at both project and watershed scales, and will be usable in
assessing both the need for and success of restoration. Ongoing or new projects in this
area inc
• Ecological performa
and M. Brinson and NCSU, T. Wentworth; new project under developmen
32
Projects completed during FY 2007- 08 include:
• Stream geomorphology reference database ( NCSU, G. Jennings); and
• Multivariate evaluation of vegetation success ( ECU, R. Rheinhardt; part of a
cooperative agreement with EPA Region IV).
Projects in the catchment focus area will demonstrate the effects that restoration projects
have on water quality, habitat and hydrology at larger s
cales and help select among
roject alternatives to better meet programmatic watershed- improvement goals. Ongoing
Project ocus area will serve to improve the success of
rest t
Ong n
• R. Peet and NCSU, T. Wentworth);
ns);
•
• stream restoration study, Mooresville, Iredell County ( NCSU, G.
e Branch BMP study, Mooresville, Iredell County ( NCSU, B. Hunt, and DWQ
���
USACE and EPA); and
t ( NC SAM; with DWQ and other
Res rc
include
p
projects in this area include:
• Big Harris Creek, Cleveland County ( NCSU, G. Jennings and DWQ WAT);
• Heath Dairy, Randolph County ( NCSU, G. Jennings, and DWQ WAT); and
• Unnamed tributary to Crab Creek, Alleghany County ( DWQ WAT).
Projects completed during FY 2007- 08 include:
• Survey of macrobenthos in restored coastal plain streams ( NCSU, G. Jennings).
s in the restoration- methods f
ora ion projects, to limit the need for maintenance and to improve cost- effectiveness.
oi g or new projects in this area include:
Carolina Vegetation Survey ( UNC,
• North River Farms Phase II monitoring, Carteret County ( NCSU, R. Eva
Ripshin Creek, Ashe County ( NCSU, G. Jennings); and
Dye Branch
Jennings, and DWQ WAT).
Projects completed during FY 07- 08 include:
• Dy
WAT).
EEP is also collaborating with state and federal agencies to develop innovative
approaches to mitigation and to develop and implement functional assessment methods.
Projects include:
• White Oak LWP ( with WPPI and ECU, M. Brinson);
• Aquatic organism passage study ( with NTMSC and USFWS);
Wetlands functional assessment implementation ( NC WAM; with DWQ, DCM,
• stream functional assessment developmen
NCDENR agencies, USACE and EPA).
ea h program objectives for FY 2008- 09
:
• Develop grant applications with researchers
in academia and sister agencies to broaden
project scope and reduce reliance on
NCDOT funding;
33
• Develop new projects to help define a sound scientific basis for ecological
performance standards ( to implement new federal regulations for compensatory
• Continuing to develop and assess new approaches for non- traditional mitigation;
will meet its commitment to implement
Continuing on- going contracts to help meet previously defined objectives.
regulations; in conjunction with USACE, EPA and DWQ);
• Continuing to define ways in which EEP
the N. C. Division of Marine Fisheries Coastal Habitat Protection Plan; and
•
34
VII: Stewardship
Photo courtesy Piedmont Land Conservancy
To qualify as compensatory mitigation, preserved and restored sites must be protected
from encroachment, conservation- easement violations and other forms of degradation in
perpetuity ( Wilmington District Process for Preservation of Mitigation Property, U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Nov. 25, 2003; C de of Federal Regulations, Vol. 73, No. 70,
Thursday, April 10, 2008, Rules and Regulations).
To ensure long- term protection of the conservation areas of the state, a Stewardship Task
Force was convened in 2004 to determine the most cost- effective and efficient method of
assuring perpetual protection of state- held conservation property interests, including
compensatory- mitigation properties. The tas force included members of the land- trust
community, Wildlife Resources, CWMTF and NCDENR divisions of Parks and
Recreation, Forest Resources and Coastal Management. The recommendation of the task
force was to establish an interest- bearing endowment account to fund perpetual
stewardship of easements held by the state on behalf of EEP and other NCDENR
agencies. A stewardship fund, the N. C. Conservation Lands Stewardship Endowment
Account, has been established to ensure that a non- reverting, interest- bearing account is
in place to fund the perpetual protection of EEP conservation easement areas and other
properties purchased by the progr itigation purposes.
Transfers of High Quality Preservation Sites to NCDENR Stewardship Program
Through a renewable three- year contractual MOA, the NCDENR Office of Natural
Resource Planning and Conservation, formerly the Office of Conservation and
Community Affairs, has assumed responsibility for stewardship of all HQP lands that
have been acquired to date by EEP, and has agreed to accept responsibility for closed- out
restoration sites that were acquired for use as compensatory mitigation by EEP. The
contractual agreement is renewable, but if terminated specifies that all information, files
o
k
am for compensatory m
35
and data will be returned to EEP or as otherwise directed by the NCDENR chief deputy
secretary.
The NCDENR Stewardship Program was created within the Office of Natural Resource
Planning and Conservation to oversee the long- term monitoring of conservation lands.
Transfers of endowment funds from EEP to the NCDENR Stewardship Program occur as
needed, but no more frequently than quarterly. It is anticipated that the interest in the
Stewardship Endowment Account will provide for long- term stewardship of these sites;
however, the endowment amounts will be evaluated at least annually to determine
whether the amount deposited per- site needs to be adjusted. The current long- term
monitoring endowment funds inspection of sites and boundaries, the production of
monitoring reports, and notification of the State Property Office and the funding agency
if encroachment or management issues are identified during site visits. Remedial actions
that can be resolved without legal assistance are considered minor conservation easement
violations or encroachment infractions. The Stewardship Program expects to be able to
resolve these minor violations. Enforcement of major legal violations will be carried out
by the N. C. Department of Justice, Attorney General’s Office.
he NCDENR Stewardship Program entered into a contractual agreement with the
2007.
al
anaged
T
Conservation Trust for North Carolina and 10 land trusts to monitor the HQP sites. The
results of the analysis of the actual costs of monitoring during the pilot year of the
stewardship agreement indicated that an adjustment in the endowment amount transferred
for each additional site was needed. Based on results of actual annual monitoring costs,
the endowment amount was adjusted upward to $ 20,000 per site for the last set of 14 high
quality preservation sites transferred during at the end of 2007. The interest gained on
the endowment account varies based on the financial climate, and the health of the fund
will be monitored closely by NCDENR.
The NCDENR Stewardship Program has accepted the responsibility for stewardship of
130 high quality preservation sites. The endowments for these sites were transferred in
three sets. EEP transferred endowments for long- term monitoring of conservation
easements for 86 high quality preservation sites to the NCDENR Stewardship Program in
the first two sets. Funding for the third and final set was transferred in December
Endowment funds of $ 14,000 per site were transferred for the first two sets. For the fin
set of 14 conservation easements, $ 20,000 per site was transferred. This increase was
based on the re- evaluation of the amount set aside in the endowments, actual cost of
monitoring the first two sets of sites, and the lower- than- expected interest gained on the
endowment fund. The endowment is housed an interest- bearing account that is m
by the state as a non- reverting account. Interest from the endowment is to be used to
fund the monitoring of these conservation easements or deed restrictions in perpetuity.
All HQP sites that were acquired by EEP have now been transferred to long- term
monitoring. HQP sites that were purchased by NCDOT right- of- way, such as Rhodes
Pond, Harris Farm and Broad River Greenway, have not been transferred, as the Board of
Transportation evaluates options for stewardship of these sites.
36
No endowment was transferred to the NCDENR Stewardship Program for 30 additional
HQP sites, which are to be managed by other government agencies, including State
Parks, WRC, and county park systems; however, NCDENR Stewardship has agreed to
house monitoring reports for those sites on the Stewardship Data Management System.
37
Appendices
38
Project Name River Basin CU County LWP Name Description
Philips Neuse 03020201 Wake Upper Swift Creek Wetland
Back Creek Yadkin 03040105 Mecklenburg Upper Rocky River/ Coddle Creek Stream/ Wetland
Bear Creek ( Phillips Tract) Cape Fear 03030003 Chatham Upper and Middle Rocky River Stream
Burnt Mill Creek ( Kerr Avenue
Wetland) Cape Fear 03030007 New Hanover New Hanover County BMP
Cato Yadkin 03040105 Mecklenburg Upper Rocky River/ Clarke Creek Stream
Charles Creek Pasquotank 03010205 Pasquotank Pasquotank Wetland
Corbett Tract Cape Fear 03030007 New Hanover New Hanover County Wetland
Elizabeth City State BMP Pasquotank 03010205 Pasquotank Pasquotank BMP
Freedom Park Catawba 03050103 Mecklenburg Charlotte LWP Stream
Irwin Creek Whitehurst Road Catawba 03050103 Mecklenburg Charlotte LWP Stream/ Wetland
Jacksonville Country Club White Oak 03030001 Onslow White Oak Stream/ BMP
Lake Wheeler Neuse 03020201 Wake Upper Swift Creek Wetland
McIntyre Creek @ Hornets Nest
Park Catawba 03050101 Mecklenburg Charlotte LWP Stream
Mildred Woods Tar- Pamlico 03020103 Edgecombe Middle Tar Pamlico Wetland
Mud Creek French Broad 06010105 Henderson Mud Creek Wetland
Sparta Bog New 05050001 Alleghany Little River and Brush Creek Wetland
UT to Rocky River ( Smith Tract) Cape Fear 03030003 Chatham Upper and Middle Rocky River Stream/ Buffer
Zack's Fork Ck RFP* Catawba 03050101 Caldwell Lower Creek Stream/ Wetland/ Buffer/ BMP
BMP ( Cary Barnes and Noble) Neuse 03020201 Wake Upper Swift Creek BMP
Greenbrier Creek Cape Fear 03030003 Chatham Upper and Middle Rocky River Stream/ Wetland
Wildcat Branch Cape Fear 03030004 Lee Cranes Creek Stream/ Wetland
Plum Creek Lumber 03040207 Brunswick Lockwoods Folly Wetland
Afton Run Yadkin 03040105 Cabarrus Upper Rocky River/ Coddle Creek Stream/ BMP
Caldwell Station Catawba 03050101 Mecklenburg Charlotte LWP Stream/ Wetland
Chapel Creek Cape Fear 03030002 Orange Morgan and Little Creeks Stream
Clear Creek French Broad 06010105 Henderson Mud Creek Stream
Coddle Creek Tributary ( Indian
Run) Yadkin 03040105 Cabarrus Upper Rocky River/ Coddle Creek Stream
Ellerbee Creek ( G) Neuse 03020201 Durham Ellerbe Creek Stream/ Buffer/ BMP
Goose Creek ( G) Neuse 03020201 Durham Ellerbe Creek Stream
Lower Creek Catawba 03050101 Caldwell Lower Creek Stream/ BMP
Mineral Springs Branch ( Burnt Mill
Creek) Cape Fear 03030007 New Hanover New Hanover County Stream/ BMP
Morgan Creek Floodplain Cape Fear 03030002 Orange Morgan and Little Creeks Wetland
Naked Creek Yadkin 03040101 Wilkes Upper Yadkin/ Kerr Scott Stream
Northgate Park ( Ellerbe) ( G) Neuse 03020201 Durham Ellerbe Creek Stream/ BMP
Purlear Creek Yadkin 03040101 Wilkes Upper Yadkin/ Kerr Scott Stream
Purlear Creek II Yadkin 03040101 Wilkes Upper Yadkin/ Kerr Scott Stream
UT to Hendricks ( G) Tar- Pamlico 03020103 Edgecombe Middle Tar Pamlico Stream/ Buffer
Warrior Creek Yadkin 03040101 Wilkes Upper Yadkin/ Kerr Scott Stream
Flintrock Farm Cape Fear 03030002 Rockingham Troublesome/ Little Troublesome Stream/ Wetland
BMP ( Town of Cary) Neuse 03020201 Wake Upper Swift Creek BMP
Lewis Creek French Broad 06010105 Henderson Mud Creek Stream
A i. Projects Located in LWP Areas*
39
Project Name River Basin CU County LWP Name Description
A i. Projects Located in LWP Areas*
Muddy Creek( Randolph/ Duncan
Properties) Catawba 03050101 McDowell Muddy Creek ( Non- EEP Plan) Stream
UT to Haw River Cape Fear 03030002 Alamance Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance Stream
Little Troublesome Cape Fear 03030002 Rockingham Troublesome/ Little Troublesome Stream/ Wetland
UT to Uwharrie Yadkin 03040103 Randolph Upper Uwharrie Stream/ Wetland
Glade Creek New 05050001 Alleghany Little River and Brush Creek Stream/ Wetland
Little Pine Creek II New 05050001 Alleghany Little River and Brush Creek Stream/ Wetland
UT to Crab Creek New 05050001 Alleghany Little River and Brush Creek Stream/ Wetland
UT to Zack's Fork Catawba 03050101 Caldwell Lower Creek Stream
Morgan Creek ( Bolin Stewardship
Tract) Cape Fear 03030002 Orange Morgan and Little Creeks Stream
Sharpe Wetland Preservation Cape Fear 03030002 Rockingham Troublesome/ Little Troublesome Stream/ Wetland
Swift Creek Watershed Wetlands Neuse 03020201 Wake Upper Swift Creek Wetland
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Catawba 03050101 McDowell Muddy Creek ( Non- EEP Plan) Stream/ Wetland
Dye Branch II Stream Restoration Yadkin 03040105 Iredell Upper Rocky River/ Clarke Creek Stream
Mooresville School Site - Rocky
River Yadkin 03040105 Iredell Upper Rocky River/ Clarke Creek Stream/ Wetland
Glade Creek II New 05050001 Alleghany Little River and Brush Creek Stream/ Wetland
UT Bear Creek ( Weaver/ McLeod
property) ( G) Cape Fear 03030003 Chatham Upper and Middle Rocky River Stream
Little Alamance Creek ( Burlington
Park) Cape Fear 03030002 Alamance Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance Stream
UT Rocky River - Harris Road
Middle Yadkin 03040105 Cabarrus Upper Rocky River/ Clarke Creek Stream/ Wetland
McKee Creek Yadkin 03040105 Cabarrus Upper Rocky River/ Coddle Creek Stream
UT Ramah Creek Yadkin 03040105 Mecklenburg Upper Rocky River/ Clarke Creek Stream
Brown Branch ( Willowbrook Park) Cape Fear 03030002 Alamance Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance Stream/ BMP
UT to Bald Creek French Broad 06010108 Yancey Bald Creek Stream
Buffalo Creek Neuse 03020201 Durham Little River Corridor Open Space Plan ( NonStream
Upper South Hominy Creek French Broad 06010105 Buncombe South Hominy Creek Stream
Martins Creek II Hiwassee 06020002 Cherokee Peachtree- Martins Creek Stream/ Wetland
Badin Inn Yadkin 03040104 Stanly Mountain/ Little Mountain Creeks Stream
Ut to Haw ( Bechom) Cape Fear 03030002 Alamance Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance Stream/ Wetland
UT to Haw ( Gwynn) Cape Fear 03030002 Alamance Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance Stream/ Wetland
UT to Martins Creek ( Contreras) Hiwassee 06020002 Cherokee Peachtree- Martins Creek Stream/ Wetland
* This list includes projects initiated by NCDOT that are located in LWP areas.
40
LWP Name River Basin 14- digit HU Initiation Date Comments Phase III Completion
Date ( Contractor)
Phase IV Status
Sep- 05
( Earth Tech)
3050105040040 Jul- 07
3050105040060 ( Earth Tech)
3050105040050
3030004020010 Sep- 04
3030004030010 ( Buck Engineering)
3030004040010
3030002060100 Dec- 04
3030002060070 ( Tetra Tech)
3030002060080
Dec- 02
( KCI)
3030002010010
3030002010030
3030003070010 Jun- 05
3030003070020 ( Tetra Tech)
3030003070050
3030004070010
3030004070020
3050101170010 Identified many stormwater BMPs/ retrofits and ~ 50,000 ft of
stream restoration
Jul- 03
3050101170020 Four EEP projects are underway ( CH2M Hill)
3050103020020
3050103020030
3050103020040
3050103020050
3050103020070
3050101080010 Jul- 06
3050101080020 ( MacTec)
Feb- 06
( Equinox)
6010105030020 Jan- 03
6010105030030 ( TVA supported this
planning effort)
6010105030040
Jan- 06
( Buck Engineering)
Cape Fear Assessment tasks completed May 2005 ( BLUE). Final
stakeholder summary and preliminary plan completed by
WECO in 2005. Several potential projects identified.
May- 08
Current mitigation needs are met. Viable projects available
for future mitigation needs.
Cranes Creek Dec- 01
Appendix A ii. Local Watershed Plans Completed through Phase III as of July 1, 2008
EEP stream restoration project is underway. Henderson
County Cooperative Extension Service received EPA grant to
fund local Watershed Coordinator to implement plan.
South Hominy Creek French Broad 6010105060020 Jul- 03 Plan identified sediment and nutrients as key stressors. EEP stream restoration project is underway. EEP is
continuing to pursue identified projects.
Mud Creek French Broad Sep- 00 Plan documented many non- point sources of impairment and
degradation. Two EEP projects are underway and a 319 grant
is funding agricultural BMPs. EEP staff participate on Mud
Creek Watershed Restoration Council.
EEP is continuing landowner outreach and pursuing several
stream restoration projects. Caldwell/ Burke Soil & Water
Conservation District received EPA grant to fund local
Watershed Coordinator to implement watershed
improvement projects.
Bald Creek French Broad 6010108080020 Jul- 03 Plan identified habitat degradation and straight piping issues. Current mitigation needs are met. Viable projects available
for future mitigation needs.
Lower Creek Catawba Jul- 03 EEP is working with post- plan stakeholder group ( Lower Creek
Advisory Team) to implement plan recommendations.
NCSU WECO has received funding from State 319 program
to help restoration and preservation efforts in the LWP
starting 2009.
Charlotte Area LWP Catawba Feb- 02 EEP is contracting with Tetra Tech to conduct Phase IV.
Phase IV is focusing on stormwater BMPs as an alternative
mitigation strategy to restore lost hydrologic and water
quality functions associated with wetland impacts in urban
areas.
Upper and Middle Rocky River Cape Fear Oct- 03 Good restoration opportunities and favorable stakeholders.
Many projects and BMP opportunities identified. Several
projects funded and/ or pursued for funding.
Stream/ BMP project is currently in design. Viable projects
available for future mitigation needs. NCSU WECO is
Troublesome/ Little Troublesome Cape Fear Nov- 01 Many potential preservation, restoration and BMP sites
identified.
February 2004 ( Tetra
Tech)
Current mitigation needs are met. Viable projects available
for future mitigation needs.
New Hanover County Cape Fear 3030007140010 Sep- 00
Current mitigation needs are met. Viable projects available
for future mitigation needs.
EEP is pursuing several projects. Chapel Hill and Carrboro
have received funding from State 319 program to help with
BMP implementation, restoration, and preservation efforts in
the LWP starting 2009.
Several restoration projects and BMP sites identified
Morgan Creek/ Little Creek Cape Fear Nov- 02 Many restoration projects and BMP sites identified. Atlas sites
have been assessed.
Kenneth and Parker Creeks/ Harris
Lake
Cape Fear Apr- 03
Feb- 03 Plan identified four priority subwatersheds for implementation
and identified stream and wetland, buffer and BMP projects.
EEP staff performing basic educational outreach. Viable
projects available for future mitigation needs.
Cove Creek Broad May- 06 Fast track LWP to identify and acquire cold/ cool stream
mitigation needs. Plan identified fourteen stream restoration
projects that met EEP minimum requirements
EEP staff investigating a collaborative protection effort for
Hickory Nut Mountain
Catheys Creek Broad 3050105070020
41
LWP Name River Basin 14- digit HU Initiation Date Comments Phase III Completion
Date ( Contractor)
Phase IV Status
Appendix A ii. Local Watershed Plans Completed through Phase III as of July 1, 2008
6020002090020 Nov- 07
6020002100040 ( Equinox)
6020002100050
6020002170010
3040203030010 Dec- 05
3040203050010 ( Earth Tech)
3040207020010 Jul- 07
3040207020020 ( Stantec)
3040207020030
3040207020040
3040207020050
Jan- 04
( UNRBA data used for
LWP)
May- 04
( ECU and NCSU
supported planning effort)
Dec- 03
( Tetra Tech)
Dec- 06
( UNRBA)
3020202010010 Dec- 05
3020202010020 ( KCI)
3020202010021
3020201110010 Jun- 05
3020201110020 ( Amec/ Tetra Tech)
5050001030020 Jun- 07
5050001030030 ( WK Dickson)
3010205050010 Feb- 04
3010205050020 ( DS Pro)
3010205040010
Subwatersheds of: Jun- 05
3020103010020 ( BLUE Land and Water
Infrastructure)
3020103060020
3020103050030
3020103080010
EEP is waiting on resolution of mitigation needs before
pursuing projects.
Middle Tar- Pamlico Tar- Pamlico Sep- 03 Planning area exhibits water quality and habitat degradation
issues. Green Mill Run project has been discontinued; EEP is
currently implementing Hendricks Creek project.
Stream/ buffer project is currently in design. Viable projects
available for future mitigation needs.
Pasquotank River Pasquotank Dec- 01 Potential restoration, enhancement, preservation and BMP
opportunities identified.
In May 2008, EEP initiated contract with UNRBA and
EcoScience to develop Site Atlas and conduct landowner
outreach for five LWPs, including Upper Swift Creek, in
Upper Neuse Basin.
Little River and Brush Creek New Oct- 03 The final Watershed Management Plan focused on the Bledsoe
Creek sub- watersheds in the vicinity of Sparta. The final
EEP has initiated the design and construction of several
stream and wetlands restoration projects within the LWP.
Upper Swift Creek Neuse Jul- 03 Four EEP projects currently in progress.
Staff is determining feasibility of plan identified projects to
help meet current nutrient offset mitigation needs
In May 2008, EEP initiated contract with UNRBA and
EcoScience to develop Site Atlas and conduct landowner
Stoney Creek Neuse Core Creek Phase
– July 2003;
Stoney Creek
Following completion of Phase I on Core Creek, LWP effort
moved to Stoney Creek in 2004.
Current mitigation needs are met. Viable projects available
for future mitigation needs.
Little Lick Creek Neuse 3020201050020 Sep- 04
LWP effort funded through EPA Contentnea Grant. Plan
identified several restoration projects and BMP sites.
City of Wilson and WRP jointly implemented a plan-identified
stormwater wetland project.
Lake Rogers Neuse 3020201060010 Jan- 02 The original plan did not identify sites for restoration. The
current planning process with EcoScience includes site
identification in Lake Rogers and extends to the lower section
In May 2008, EEP initiated contract with UNRBA and
EcoScience to develop Site Atlas and conduct landowner
outreach for five LWPs, including Lake Rogers, in Upper
Hominy Swamp Creek Neuse 3020203020040 Sep- 99
EEP is currently pursuing plan- identified stream and riparian
wetland projects. NC Coastal Federation received an EEG
grant to implement BMPs identified in LWP.
Several restoration projects completed. Additional site searches
being conducted in Ellerbe Creek by EcoScience and the City
of Durham.
EEP is contracting with UNRBA and EcoScience to develop
Site Atlas and conduct landowner outreach for five LWPs,
including Ellerbe Creek, in Upper Neuse Basin.
Ellerbe Creek Neuse 3020201050010 Jan- 02
Lockwood Folly River Lumber Jun- 05 Plan identified 9 watershed management recommendation, 10
stream projects, 8 riparian wetland, 4 non- riparian and 23
stormwater projects. Brunswick County is addressing
management recommendations as well as seeking funding for
BMP projects.
Two restoration projects are underway. EEP is continuing
landowner outreach and education
Bear Swamp Lumber Oct- 03 The plan identified 28 projects. All stream projects were
visited and reviewed with local stakeholders. The plan was also
In 2007- 2008, EEP worked with the local municipalities,
native American tribe and other stakeholders to reach out to
Peachtree- Martins Creek Hiwassee Jul- 05 Plan identified stressors and management strategies, modeled
impacts of various growth management measures, and
identified 16 restoration sites and 7 preservation sites
42
LWP Name River Basin 14- digit HU Initiation Date Comments Phase III Completion
Date ( Contractor)
Phase IV Status
Appendix A ii. Local Watershed Plans Completed through Phase III as of July 1, 2008
3040101010080 Jun- 04
3040101010090 ( Tetra Tech)
3040101010010
3040101010100
3040101010110
3040105010010 Feb- 04
3040105010020 ( CDM)
3040105010030 Apr- 05
3040105010040 ( Mactec)
3040105010050
3040105020010
WECO and EEP performed education and outreach activities
for landowners and local government. Current mitigation
needs are met. Viable projects available for future mitigation
needs.
Upper Rocky River and Coddle
Creek
Yadkin Dec- 02 LWP is located adjacent to Upper Rocky River and Clarke
Creek LWP area. Together these two LWPs comprise the entire
Upper Rocky River drainage system.
Current mitigation needs are met. Viable projects available
for future mitigation needs. CWMTF funding sought for Ag
BMPs.
Upper Rocky River and Clarke
Creek
Yadkin Dec- 01 Many potential projects identified including ~ 80,000 ft of
stream restoration and BMP projects.
Several projects are currently in acquisition.
Kerr Scott Reservoir Yadkin Nov- 01 Approximately 60,000 ft of stream restoration identified.
Wetland opportunities are negligible.
43
LWP
Name
River
Basin
14- digit HU Initiation
Date
Status/ Comments Estimated Phase III Completion Date
3030002030010
3030002040110
Cape Fear
06
Cape Fear Final HU selection is taking place based
on local resource professional input.
This LWP will be primarily conducted “ in-house”.
A contractor will be used only for
GIS analysis and Site Atlas development.
3050102040040
3050102050010
3050102040030
601020240010
601020240020
601020240030
601020240040
601020260010
Subwatersheds of:
3020204030020
3020204030050
3020204040010
3020204050020
3020204050030
3020204050040
3020101020010
3020101030010
3020101030020
Subwatersheds of:
3030001020010
Subwatersheds of:
3020106030040
3040101100010
3040101100020
3040101110010
3040101110020
3040101110030
3040101110040
3040101110050
Subwatersheds of:
3040101110060
3040101110070
Jun- 08
Appendix A iii. LWP Initiatives in Progress/ On- Hold
Ararat
River and
Upper
Yadkin
Yadkin
Jun- 05
This LWP is an abridged ' fast track'
effort, designed to produce a final Project
Atlas within 12 months of start- up. Sub-watershed
prioritization will be completed
by October, and additional water quality
and benthics monitoring work is slated to
begin by October 2008. Quarterly
stakeholder meetings began in July of
2008. Recently reported DOT TIP delay
has reduced mitigation needs.
EEP is contracting with East Carolina
University and NC Environmental Defense
Apr- 06
McAdams Company – EcoEngineering is
providing technical support. Estimated
completion date is July 2009.
White Oak
06
White Oak Apr- 06 Technical Assessment first draft
completed
White Oak
01
White Oak
Jan- 08
Technical Assessment first draft
completed
Fishing
Creek
Tar-
Pamlico
May- 05 Phase II technical assessment draft
completed
Cape Fear May- 06
Plan is in Phase I and the stakeholder
process has commenced. Preliminary
screening has identified numerous
EEP is contracting with East Carolina
University and NC Environmental Defense
Planning effort has been placed on HOLD
pending further mitigation needs.
Phase I activities ended January 2006
( EcoScience).
Franklin to
Fontana
Little
Tennessee
Jun- 08 Phase I activities underway; new land
use/ cover, riparian buffer datasets
developed
Travis,
Tickle,
Project is close to completion with the
publishing of a Draft Phase III report and
EEP is contracting with KCI to perform
Technical Assessment. Estimated
completion date is February 2009.
December 2009. ENTRIX Inc., is contracted
to support Phase II fieldwork and
development of a project Atlas.
November 2008. Piedmont Triad Council of
Gov’t is providing technical and facilitation
Lower
Neuse
Neuse
Summer 2010. Equinox Environmental is
providing technical support.
Indian and
Howards
Creek
Catawba
44
LWP
Name
River
Basin
14- digit HU Initiation
Date
Status/ Comments Estimated Phase III Completion Date
Appendix A iii. LWP Initiatives in Progress/ On- Hold
3040104010010
3040104010020
3040103050010
3040103050020
3040103050040
3040105030020
3040105040010
Apr- 05 Planning effort has been placed on HOLD
pending further mitigation needs.
Planning effort has been placed on HOLD
pending further mitigation needs.
Goose and
Crooked
Yadkin Jun- 08 Phase I efforts began with Watershed
Technical Team Stakeholder ( WTT) kick-
EEP is contracting with Centralina Council
of Governments and Tetra Tech for Phase I
Upper
Uwharrie
Yadkin Phase I completed August 2005 ( Buck
Engineering).
Mountain/ L
ittle
Yadkin Jul- 03 Phase I report completed in March 2004
( HDR)
45
Local Government/ Municipality Project Name
Alamance County/ Burlington Little Alamance Creek ( Burlington Park)
Cabarrus County UT Rocky River- Harris Road Middle School
City of Durham Third Fork Creek ( Forest Hills)
City of Durham Northgate Park ( Ellerbe)
City of Durham Sandy Creek
City of Durham Ellerbe Creek ( Hillandale Golf Course)
City of Durham & Durham Public Schools Goose Creek
City of Greensboro Brown Bark Park
City of Greensboro Benbow
City of Greensboro Hillsdale
City of Greensboro Gillespie
City of Greensboro Price Park
City of New Bern Simmons St. Stormwater Wetland
Lenoir County/ Kinston Adkin Branch
Mecklenburg County Freedom Park
Mecklenburg County Sixmile Creek Wetland
Mecklenburg County McIntyre Creek
Mecklenburg County UT to Clarke Creek
Mecklenburg County Irwin Creek Whitehurst Road
Mooresville Graded School System Mooresville School Site- Rocky River
Orange County Stillhouse Creek
Orange County/ Town of Carrboro Bolin Creek ( Lake Hogan Farms)
Town of Cary Town of Cary BMPs
Town of Cornelius Caldwell Station
Town of Davidson/ Mecklenburg County UT to West Branch of Rocky River
Town of Fletcher UT to Cane Creek ( Fletcher- Meritor Site)
Town of Mooresville Dye Branch Stream Restoration Project
Town of Roseboro UT to Little Coharie Creek
Wake County Lake Myra Headwater Buffer
Wake County Middle Creek Buffer
A iv. Collaborative Projects with Government Entities
46
Ararat River & Upper Yadkin Local Watershed Plan
FACT SHEET
Location
River Basin:
Cataloging Unit:
14- digit Hydrologic Units:
Counties:
Upper Yadkin
03040101
03040101 100010, 100020, 110010, 110020, 110030, 110040, 110050
+ partial ( north of Yadkin River): 110060 and 110070
Surry
Watershed Area ~ 235 square miles
Planning Contact: Hal Bryson
EEP Watershed Planner, Western Region
( 828) 450- 9408
hal. bryson@ ncmail. net
Participants: Local Advisory Team ( LAT) – Committed stakeholders include: NC DWQ,
Surry SWCD, Surry NRCS; Prospective stakeholders include: Surry Co. Planning,
City of Mount Airy, Town of Pilot Mountain, Piedmont Land Conservancy, NC
WRC, NC CWMTF, NC Div. of Parks, Pilot View RC& D, NW Piedmont COG, Trout
Unlimited, Resource Institute, Inc.
Contractor( s) /
Consultant( s)
John R. McAdams Company
Jim Halley, Project Manager
NC DWQ – Watershed Assessment Team ( WAT)
Dave Wanucha, Project Manager
Project Overview
This Local Watershed Planning ( LWP) initiative consists of three major tasks: ( 1) a streamlined assessment of
watershed conditions across the initial study area ( portions of nine 14- digit HUs, comprising 235 sq. miles in the Upper Yadkin
River basin in Surry County) – see Figure on next page; ( 2) rapid field assessment of stream channel and riparian buffer
conditions within priority sub- watersheds, comprising a Focus Area of approximately 100 square miles; and ( 3) development of
a Watershed Assessment Report and Project Atlas. The Project Atlas is geared towards the identification of the most effective
sites for stream restoration/ enhancement and preservation projects, as well as agricultural and urban Best Management
Practices ( BMP) project sites. Final LWP documents will support EEP compensatory mitigation goals within the upper Yadkin
Cataloging Unit, as well as the needs of local stakeholders seeking to implement non- mitigation projects ( e. g., storm water
BMPs within urban sub- watersheds) via non- EEP funding.
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699- 27699- 1652 / 919- 715- 0476 / www. nceep. net
47
Staff from NC DWQ’s Watershed Assessment Team ( WAT) will lend vital support to this project by developing and
implementing a water quality monitoring plan. This will include sampling for water quality parameters and benthic macro-invertebrates
at selected sites within the priority sub- watersheds ( to be identified by fall of 2008).
The nine local watersheds ( 14- digit HUs) comprising the initial study area for this LWP were selected on the
basis of several factors, including: the presence of impaired, 303( d)- listed stream reaches; the opportunity to partner with
key local stakeholders, including Surry NRCS and SWCD; the presence of good candidate sites for stream restoration in rural
catchments; prior designation of three of the HUs as EEP Targeted Local Watersheds ( TLWs); and the presence of existing
watershed projects funded through the NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund ( CWMTF).
Project Schedule
This Local Watershed Planning ( LWP) initiative is based on a ‘ fast track’ watershed assessment that began in spring 2008.
It will culminate in the summer of 2009 with development of a final Watershed Assessment Report and Project Atlas. A Local
Advisory Team ( LAT) consisting of state and local resource professionals, including land trust and local government staff, will
meet quarterly beginning in the summer of 2008 to assist in developing project ranking criteria and BMP recommendations.
Project Documents
Will be posted as downloadable files, as they become available.
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699- 27699- 1652 / 919- 715- 0476 / www. nceep. net
Ararat River & Tributary Streams
48
COVE CREEK LOCAL WATERSHED PLAN
FACT SHEET
River Basin:
Cataloging Unit:
14- digit Hydrologic Units:
Counties:
Broad
03050105
03050105040040, 03050105040050, 03050105040060
McDowell, Rutherford
Watershed Area 80 square miles
Planning Contact: Andrea Leslie - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
( 828) 337- 3455 or Andrea. Leslie@ ncmail. net
Participants: Rutherford & McDowell Co. NRCS and SWCD
Contractor Hired for
Watershed Assessment
Earth Tech, Inc. Contact: Ron Johnson at ( 919) 854- 6210 or
Ron. Johnson@ earthtech. com
Project Overview
The Cove Creek watershed is located in a rural area of McDowell and Rutherford Counties. In 2006,
Earth Tech was hired to develop a fast- track watershed characterization and restoration strategy for
the Cove Creek watershed. This abbreviated planning effort involved GIS analysis of land use, buffer
integrity, and recent aerial photographs; field efforts were limited to assessment of channel and in-stream
habitat integrity at potential restoration sites. Stakeholder involvement involved several
meetings with local Natural Resource Conservation Service and Soil and Water Conservation District
technical staff.
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699- 27699- 1652 / 919- 715- 0476 / www. nceep. net
The majority of the watershed is forested, and headwater streams are in relatively good condition.
Most of the lower gradient bottomlands, through which Cove Creek and some of its tributaries run, are
used for pasture, hay, and homes. Cove Creek itself does suffer from severe bank erosion; in many
areas, its channel is incised and lacks a woody buffer. Primary stressors for the watershed are stream
incision of Cove Creek, inadequate riparian buffers, sedimentation, stream bank erosion, livestock
access, and possible nutrient enrichment. The greatest threat to stream integrity is development and
49
consequent increases in sedimentation, nutrients, and stormwater. This area is attractive to second
home and retirement communities; land prices have skyrocketed, and some larger forested tracts have
recently been sold.
A plan was developed to identify stream restoration projects with willing landowners and to name
strategies to improve ecological function in July 2007. Management strategies needed to restore and
protect stream health include stream and wetland restoration, buffer planting, agriculture, forestry,
and stormwater best management practices, and education. The plan identified 14 stream restoration
projects that fit the minimum requirements of EEP.
Project Documents for Download
Cove Creek Watershed Management Plan ( 3.5 mb)
Cove Creek Plan— Appendices A & B ( 4.6 mb)
Cove Creek Plan— Appendices C, D, E & F ( 3.8 mb)
Cove Creek Project Atlas ( 12 mb)
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699- 27699- 1652 / 919- 715- 0476 / www. nceep. net
50
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699- 27699- 1652 / 919- 715- 0476 / www. nceep. net
FRANKLIN TO FONTANA LOCAL WATERSHED PLAN
Fact Sheet
Location:
River Basin:
Cataloging Unit:
14- digit Hydrologic Units:
Counties:
Near Franklin, NC
Little Tennessee
06010202
0601020240010, 0601020240020, 0601020240030, 0601020240040, 0601020260010
Macon, Swain
Watershed Area 154 square miles
Planning Contact: Andrea Leslie - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
( 828) 337- 3455 or Andrea. Leslie@ ncmail. net
Participants: Advisory Committee made up of Local Citizens, Little Tennessee Watershed Association, Land
Trust for the Little Tennessee, Macon County, Natural Heritage Program, more…..
Contractor Hired for
Watershed Assessment:
Equinox Environmental Consultation and Design, Inc.
Contact: Andy Brown at ( 828) 253- 6856 or andy@ equinoxenvironmental. com
Project Overview
The Franklin to Fontana watershed is a 154 mi2 area near Franklin that encompasses the Little Tennessee River
watershed between Lake Emory and Lake Fontana. This area is of great ecological and cultural significance, and it
includes a 23- mile free- flowing stretch of the Little Tennessee River that hosts a highly diverse aquatic community,
including a number of rare, threatened, and endangered fish and mussels. The area includes Cowee, Burningtown,
Iotla, Watauga, Brush, and Tellico Creeks. This primarily rural watershed is a mix of pasture, forest, and residential
land, but there is notable develo

“ Celebrating Its
5th Anniversary”
On July 22, 2008, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program celebrated its fifth anniversary. To-gether
with our partners, we have planned, designed, built and grown more than 530 stream
and wetland compensatory mitigation projects for business and residential private develop-ers,
municipalities, schools and the North Carolina Department of Transportation. In the
process we also built a nationally recognized, award- winning organization. This annual re-port
is dedicated to our staff and partners, who have been instrumental in accomplishing
goals and achieving success.
Table of Contents
I. EEP Programs p. 1
II. Watershed Planning and Project Implementation p. 3
a. Watershed Planning p. 4
b. Project Implementation p. 7
c. Synergies Between Watershed Planning and Project Implementation p. 8
d. Collaborative Partnerships p. 9
III. Financial Accounting, Cost Data and Property Acquisition p. 15
a. Revenue, Expenditures and Encumbrances p. 15
b. Cost of Mitigation Delivery p. 18
c. Property Acquisition p. 21
IV. Program Inventory Status p. 22
a. Stream and Wetland Mitigation Inventory p. 22
b. Statewide Status of MOU and MOA Programs p. 24
c. Statewide Status of Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset Programs p. 26
V. Stream and Wetland Compliance p. 28
VI. Monitoring p. 30
a Monitoring p. 30
b. Maintenance Improvements p. 31
c. Project and Program Improvement Research p. 31
VII. Stewardship p. 35
Appendices
A. Watershed Planning and Project Implementation p. 39
i. Projects Identified through the Local Watershed Planning Process p. 39
ii. Local Watershed Plans Completed through Phase III as of July 1, 2008 p. 41
iii. LWP Initiatives in Progress p. 44
iv. Collaborative Projects with Government Entities p. 46
v. Local Watershed Plan Fact Sheets p. 47
B. Stream and Wetland Receipts p. 60
i. Streams and Wetlands In- Lieu Fee Mitigation Program Receipts p. 60
ii. Buffer Receipts p. 72
iii. Nutrient Offset Receipts p. 76
C. Private Mitigation Banking Survey p. 90
i. Mitigation Banking Survey Recipient List p. 90
ii. Mitigation Banking Survey Questions p. 92
D. Contracts p. 93
i. Active Full- Delivery Contracts p. 93
ii. Design and Construction Contracts Awarded 2007- 08 p. 96
iii. FY 2007- 08 Vendor Payments by Contract Type p. 98
E. Properties p. 100
i. Cumulative Properties p. 100
ii. FY 2007- 08 Properties Closed p. 109
iii. FY 2007- 08 Properties Optioned p. 119
F. Monitoring p. 120
i. FY 2007- 08 Total Projects in Monitoring and Long Term Management p. 120
ii. FY 2007- 08 Projects Submitted for Close- out p. 127
List of Figures and Tables
Figures
Figure 1. Map of NC River Basins
p. 2
Figure 2. Peachtree- Martins Creek Local Watershed Planning Area
p. 6
Figure 3. Percentage of EEP Design Bid Build Projects Located in Planning Areas FY 2007- 08
p. 8
Figure 4. Design Bid Build Wetland Credits
p. 9
Figure 5. Design Bid Build Stream Credits
p. 9
Figure 6. MOA Fund 2984 Fiscal Year 2007- 2008
p. 15
Figure 7. Funds 2981, 2982, 2982- 9829; Fiscal Year 2007- 2008
p. 16
Figure 8. Fiscal Year 2007- 2008 Design Bid Build - Contract Payments by Type
p. 21
Figure 9. Status of EEP Stream Mitigation Program in Credits
p. 25
Figure 10. Status of EEP Wetland Program in Credits
p. 26
Tables
Table 1. Nutrient Offset Program Fee Rate
p. 17
Table 2. NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program On- call Authorizations p. 20
Table 3. Total Contracted Services FY 2007- 08
p. 20
Table 4. EEP Total Assets FY 2007- 08 p. 22
Table 5. EEP Inventory of Asset Credits, FY 2007- 08
p. 24
Table 6. Riparian Buffer ILF Program Status FY 2007- 08
p. 26
Table 7. Nutrient Offset ILF Program Status FY 2007- 08
p. 27
Table 8. MOA Program Compliance
p. 28
Table 9. MOU Program Compliance
p. 29
Executive Summary
During its fifth full year of operations in fiscal year 2007- 08, the N. C. Ecosystem Enhancement
Program ( EEP) took on new challenges and continued to register fresh successes in meeting its
goals of improving North Carolina’s environment while facilitating responsible economic growth
for the state and its residents.
EEP continued to collaborate with federal, state and local governments, contractors and willing
landowners to provide goods and services, basing its work on a solid foundation of watershed plan-ning
that goes beyond mere environmental permitting and compliance. The initiative also extended
its record of carrying out its mission without a single transportation- project delay due to the lack of
mitigation, helping to move forward more than $ 4.8 billion in transportation- infrastructure im-provements
since becoming operational in 2003.
Key developments in FY 2007- 08 included:
• Responding to changes to federal rules guiding aquatic- resource mitigation. Under the
leadership of the Governor’s office, N. C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
( NCDENR) and EEP petitioned the U. S. Office of Management and Budget, the U. S. Environ-mental
Protection Agency and U. S. Army Corps of Engineers ( USACE) in late 2007 to promote in-lieu
fee programs such as EEP as a method to providing third- party mitigation for public- and pri-vate-
sector development. The new rule, which became effective in June of 2008, gave recognition
to EEP’s unique national status and maintained ILFs as a viable option. The rule will require EEP
to make operational adjustments and the details of these changes are being evaluated.
• Securing fee- schedule revisions for the non- NCDOT Stream and Wetland ILF Program.
In July of 2008, a two year process to revise EEP’s fees for stream and wetland mitigation came to
a conclusion. The increased fees were necessary to offset increased costs for land acquisition,
design, construction, maintenance, stewardship and inflation. Information on these new fees can be
found at http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ fee. htm.
• Implementation of Session Law 2008- 152, an act to promote compensatory mitigation by
private mitigation banks, passed by the General Assembly in July 2008. The law, which took
effect on October 1, disallows the use of EEP’s ILF program when credits from a private mitigation
bank are available for purchase. EEP supported the development of a document that describes how
the Department will implement the law. EEP and DWQ will monitor the effects of the law as a
part of its regular reporting requirements to USACE and the General Assembly.
• Implementation of Session Law 2007- 438, an act to establish transitional nutrient offset
payments and to direct the Department of Environment and Natural Resources to develop
and implement a plan to transition the N. C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program nutrient offset
program from a fee- based program to a program based on the actual costs of providing nu-trient
credits. In September 2007, the General Assembly established a fee schedule for the Nu-trient
Offset Program and required that EEP begin the process of converting from a fee schedule
system to an actual cost system. The law required EEP to provide progress reports to the
Environmental Review Commission in September 2008, March 2009, and implement the plan by
September 2009. The September 2008 progress report was presented to the ERC on schedule, and
i.
EEP expects to meet the September 2009 deadline.
• Working in partnership with NCDENR, NCDOT, USACE and other state and federal
agencies to reduce surplus mitigation assets. As reported last year, an interagency task force
came together in August 2007 to begin addressing the issue of surplus mitigation. Since that
time the task force was able to agree on provisions to allow some latitude for the application of
surplus mitigation on specific highway projects. This group has generated strategies that are
expected to eventually reduce an initial surplus of $ 197 million to approximately $ 40 million.
NCDOT, NCDENR and USACE are continuing work to develop and implement ways to fur-ther
reduce the remaining surplus inventory.
Also during FY 2007- 08, EEP has continued to increase the number of projects implemented
based on watershed planning. This year, 85 percent of projects implemented by EEP using the
Design- Bid- Build delivery process were located in watershed- planning areas ( for more infor-mation,
see section II of this report).
The program continues to achieve very high compliance rates. Compliance for the mitigation
program serving NCDOT exclusively ( known as the Memorandum of Agreement ( MOA) pro-gram)
is 95.89 percent for streams, 98.80 percent for riparian wetlands, 98.88 percent for non-riparian
wetlands and 100 percent for coastal marsh. Within the mitigation program that serves
the needs of other developers and the general public ( known as the Memorandum of
Understanding ( MOU) program), 96.7 percent of all requirements were fully met. A statewide
status summary of both programs’ inventory shows that EEP has 1,534,937 feet of stream assets
and 13,118.76 acres of wetlands. The majority of these assets have been prepared in advance
of NCDOT permit needs and are ready for use as permits are issued.
The remaining sections in this report describe the current program status. The report is in-tended
to satisfy all reporting requirements as defined in G. S. 143- 214.13 and agreements with
USACE and NCDOT. EEP anticipates continuing progress in the year ahead on providing a
more holistic approach to mitigation, facilitating the delivery of projects that help to drive the
state’s economy, and restoring, enhancing and protecting the state’s wetlands, waterways and
natural areas for future generations.
____________________________ __________________
William D. Gilmore, PE, Director Date
ii.
I: EEP Programs
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program ( EEP) is an initiative within the N. C. Department
of Environment and Natural Resources ( NCDENR) that improves our environment while
facilitating economic development. EEP restores streams and wetlands where the
greatest need is by working with local and state partners, including willing landowners.
The N. C. Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) and other developers voluntarily use
EEP to move their projects forward in a timely and affordable manner.
EEP provides mitigation services through four different in lieu fee ( ILF) programs:
1) The NCDOT Stream and Wetland ILF Program ( hereafter referred to in
this document as the Memorandum of Agreement ( MOA) program);
2) The General Public Stream and Wetland ILF Program ( hereafter, the
Memorandum of Understanding ( MOU) program);
3) The General Public Riparian Buffer ILF Mitigation Program; and
4) The General Public Nutrient Offset ILF Program.
Eligibility to participate in an EEP program is a joint decision made by the developer,
EEP and the regulatory agencies. Each of the mitigation programs operate as an ILF
program in which applicants make payments to EEP in lieu of providing mitigation
themselves, or by other means. Upon payment, EEP assumes the full legal responsibility
for planning, developing and implementing the required types and amounts of mitigation.
After successful payment, applicants are no longer liable for the mitigation requirement.
Additional details on these programs are included within this report.
1) MOA Program:
A 2003 MOA among NCDENR, NCDOT and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers outlines
procedures for how NCDOT utilizes EEP as an ILF program for NCDOT’s offsite stream
and wetland mitigation needs, and specifies performance metrics for the delivery of that
mitigation. In February of each year, NCDOT provides EEP with its mitigation request
in the form of a forecast of future impacts to aquatic resources for the seven- year
Transportation Improvement Program ( TIP) list. EEP secures the mitigation needed by
NCDOT following protocols outlined in the Tri- Party MOA. EEP uses Fund 2984 to
track payments and expenditures for this program.
2) MOU Program:
The general public MOU Stream and Wetland Program provides applicants of Section
404 Permits, Section 401 Water Quality Certifications, and/ or Coastal Area Management
Act permits the option to satisfy compensatory- mitigation requirements for wetland and
stream impacts in all 17 North Carolina river basins through payment into EEP's ILF
program. Protocols for mitigation delivery under this program are specified in an MOU
between NCDENR and USACE. Payments made into the Stream and Wetland ILF
Program are deposited into Fund 2981.
1
In FY 2007- 08, 189 customers made payments into the MOU Program. Stream and
Wetland ILF payments totaled $ 11,020,380. Of this amount, a total of 159 customers had
requirements from both USACE ( 404) and Division of Water Quality ( DWQ) ( 401), 24
customers had requirements from USACE only and eight customers had requirements
from DWQ only.
3) Riparian Buffer ILF Mitigation Program:
The Riparian Buffer ILF Mitigation Program is an option to meet compensatory-mitigation
requirements associated with riparian- buffer impacts in the Neuse, Tar-
Pamlico and Catawba river basins, and the Randleman Reservoir watershed in the upper
Cape Fear River basin. Payments are made to the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund
( Fund 2982) according to the regulatory schedule of fees for buffers.
In Fiscal Year 2007- 08, EEP received payments for 1,184,056 square feet ( 27.18 acres)
of buffer mitigation. At the close of the fiscal year, EEP had accepted responsibility for
506.06 acres of buffer- mitigation requirements cumulatively since the program’s
inception in the Cape Fear, Catawba, Neuse and Tar- Pamlico River basins.
4) Nutrient Offset ILF Program:
The Nutrient Offset Program is an option to meet compensatory mitigation requirements
associated with nutrient- offset requirements in the Neuse and Tar- Pamlico River basins.
Payments made into the Nutrient Offset ILF Program are deposited into Fund 2981- 9829.
During FY 2007- 08, nutrient- offset payments were made by 338 customers located in the
counties of Durham, Franklin, Johnston, Nash, Pitt, Wake and Wayne, and the
municipalities of Cary, Durham, Garner, Goldsboro, Greenville, Havelock, Kinston, New
Bern, Raleigh, Rocky Mount, Tarboro, Washington and Wilson. These payments were
for 293,850.01 pounds of nitrogen reduction and 715.74 pounds of phosphorus reduction.
Figure 1. Map of NC River Basins
2
II: Watershed Planning and Project Implementation
EEP’s enabling legislation ( NC 143- 218.8), its Tri- Party MOA and the new federal
compensatory- mitigation rules on compensating for losses of aquatic resources ( 33
CFR Parts 325 and 332, and 40 CFR Part 230) require EEP to implement watershed
planning- based restoration and preservation projects. These requirements reflect the
widely held position of water resource professionals that projects based on watershed
planning will provide the best environmental return on investment. Therefore, an
important focus of EEP continues to be the implementation of watershed restoration
and preservation projects based on environmental needs identified through watershed
planning. This is accomplished through high- level and detailed planning initiatives and
the coordination of project implementation in accordance with planning outcomes.
EEP conducts two main types of watershed planning:
1) River Basin Restoration Priority Planning ( high- level river
basin/ eight- digit CU scale); and
2) Local Watershed Planning ( detailed level, small watershed scale).
The products of EEP’s planning efforts are used to direct mitigation resources to areas of
need. For reasons outlined in Section V of the 2006- 2007 annual report
( http:// www. nceep. net/ news/ annualreport/ 2007/ EEP_ Annual_ Report_ 2006_ 2007. pdf),
not all EEP projects implemented in the first five years of the program have been
watershed planning- based projects. However, EEP’s goal is to implement all program
projects in targeted watersheds. This year EEP continued to make great strides toward
this goal through its Design- Bid- Build ( DBB) project- delivery process. Projects
generated through EEP’s Full Delivery ( FD) program have not shown the desired level of
congruence with planning targets. Consequently, in order to promote improvement in
this area, EEP recently changed its approach with regard to FD project development.
Where possible, EEP is only accepting projects contained within watershed targets
instead of providing incentives related to technical ratings for project proposals within
watershed targets. EEP will assess the success of this approach and determine whether
the stated goals are being reached and whether additional adjustments are necessary.
This section describes the status of EEP watershed- planning methods and assesses how
well the program’s project implementation corresponds with watershed priorities. It also
summarizes a survey conducted of participants in EEP Local Watershed Planning
initiatives. EEP strives to have local watershed plans and associated recommendations
fully implemented. Toward that end, EEP continues to work with local stakeholders and
funding programs to ensure that the plans not only generate projects to satisfy mitigation
needs, but also serve as a resource for communities working to implement watershed
improvements. This section highlights key partnerships with state and local entities
which are vital to EEP’s watershed- planning focus for project implementation, which
maximizes mitigation investments for the benefit of the state’s natural resources.
3
WATERSHED PLANNING
The purpose of watershed planning is to determine the best locations for watershed-restoration
projects based on analysis of watersheds’ needs for restoration and
protection. Simply put, it is putting watershed restoration and preservation projects
where they are most needed. This is done by conducting two types of planning – River
Basin Restoration Priority ( RBRP) planning and Local Watershed planning. For more
information about EEPs watershed planning, including watershed plan products
searchable by county or river basin, go to: http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ lwplanning. htm.
River Basin Restoration Priority Plans
RBRP planning is conducted in each of the 17 river basins in North Carolina. The
purpose of RBRP planning is to identify through data analysis and field verification those
watersheds that exhibit a combination of local resources, problems and opportunities, and
therefore serve as Targeted Local Watersheds ( TLWs) to focus project implementation
by EEP and other entities. TLWs represent those watersheds where restoration or
protection is most needed— for instance, watersheds that include streams with impaired
water quality and degraded habitat are often targeted. More information on EEP’s RBRP
planning process is available through EEP’s Policy, Process and Procedures Manual:
http:// www. nceep. net/ abouteep/ PPPM2/ Policies% 20and% 20Procedures/ PLN. PRO. 02.01.
01. pdf
EEP’s enabling statute requires that the RBRP planning takes place based on DWQ’s
Basinwide Planning update schedule. DWQ has changed its model for updating
basinwide watershed plans from once every five years to a continuous update of a
Web data layer with a biannual written report. EEP is adjusting procedures to deliver
river- basin planning products within the biannual timeframe.
The RBRP plans incorporate water quality information from DWQ Basinwide
Assessment Reports and Water Quality Plans, as well as input from local resource agency
professionals and the location of existing or planned watershed projects. RBRP Planning
updates also take advantage of newly acquired watershed datasets produced by the N. C.
Center for Geographic Information and Analysis ( CGIA) that profile the assets, problems
and baseline conditions of watersheds statewide. RBRP planning documents are posted
on the EEP Web site, searchable by river basin or county:
http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ lwplanning. htm.
In FY 2007- 08, EEP completed the Little Tennessee RBRP planning and updated
portions of the Catawba and Yadkin River Basin Restoration Priority Planning
documents. The Chowan, Catawba and Yadkin basins were scheduled to be completed in
December 2007, but have been postponed until December 2008 in order to incorporate
the new CGIA datasets. The data will also be used to update RBRP planning documents
in 2008- 2009, including the Broad, Cape Fear, Hiwassee, Lumber, New, Pasquotank,
Roanoke, Savannah, Watauga and White Oak.
4
Local Watershed Plans
Local Watershed planning merges TLWs identified in RBRP planning with anticipated
mitigation needs to determine where future mitigation investments can provide the
greatest benefit for the State of North Carolina. The development of a Local Watershed
Plans ( LWP) is typically a four- phase process: Preliminary Watershed Characterization
( Phase I), Detailed Assessment ( Phase II), Development of a Watershed Management
Plan including identification of potential project sites within a Project Atlas ( Phase III)
and Implementation of the Plan ( Phase IV). However, rapid or abbreviated plans are also
utilized when the mitigation- compliance timeline is compressed, the mitigation needs are
insufficient to justify an extensive planning investment, or detailed analyses are not
necessary to identify the most ecologically beneficial projects.
EEP watershed planners are responsible for evaluating data and local resources to
identify watersheds that demonstrate both the need for functional uplift and existing
restoration opportunities to satisfy mitigation needs. Detailed watershed evaluations
are conducted through the use of internal and external resources. External resources
include private environmental planning and engineering firms, DWQ, CGIA and
various not- for- profit organizations. Watershed planners coordinate with local
resource professionals, state and federal agencies, private consulting firms and EEP
project managers in the development and implementation of LWPs.
EEP staff is continuing work on LWPs across the state. Nine plans are underway and
in various stages of development and expected to be completed later in 2008 or 2009.
Appendix A( iii) presents a summary of ongoing LWPs; these are efforts that haven’t
yet resulted in a final Watershed Management Plan or Project Atlas ( listing of identified
restoration opportunities), but will do so within the next six to 18 months. Fact sheets
summarizing EEP’s Local Watershed planning efforts and links to associated reports
are available on EEP’s Web site: http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ lwplanning. htm.
Completed Local Watershed Plans
LWPs are defined by EEP as complete at the end of Phase III with the production of a
Watershed Management Plan and Project Atlas. To date, EEP has completed 27
watershed plans through Phase III. Phase IV focuses on outreach and implementation of
projects derived from LWPs and is therefore an ongoing process. LWPs are designed
such that they result in a suite of watershed- restoration recommendations, including but
not limited to mitigation opportunities that can be implemented by a myriad of public and
private entities over an extended period of time. Therefore, while EEP’s involvement in
implementation ebbs and flows based upon mitigation needs, many other entities
continue to pursue recommendations and projects that result from the Local Watershed
planning process. EEP is actively pursuing projects identified in many plans, previous
and current, in an effort to satisfy mitigation needs. To date EEP has implemented 51
projects worth more than $ 43 million in Local Watershed planning areas. ( See Appendix
A for a list of those projects).
EEP completed three Local Watershed planning efforts in FY 2007- 2008: Peachtree-
Martins Creek LWP in the Hiwassee 02 CU, Cove Creek LWP in the Broad 05 CU and
5
Lockwoods Folly LWP in the Lumber 07 CU.
Figure 2. Peachtree- Martins Creek Local Watershed Planning Area
roject fact sheets summarizing efforts on each of these plans and links to the
orresponding planning documents are included in Appendix A. A summary of all LWPs
ix A.
Pc
completed to date and the status of Phase IV efforts is also included in Append
Current information on EEP’s Local Watershed planning efforts is available on EEP’s
Web site by river basin or county: http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ lwplanning. htm.
New Local Watershed Planning Initiatives
This year EEP began work on four new Local Watershed planning initiatives:
Indian/ Howards Creek LWP ( Catawba 02 CU), Franklin to Fontana LWP ( Little
( Yadkin
urveyed participants in its Local Watershed planning to gauge how
tection needs of EEP and local
r
Tennessee 02 CU), Ararat River LWP ( Yadkin 01 CU) and Goose Creek LWP
05 CU). Fact sheets summarizing current planning activities for each of these plans are
included in Appendix A and available on EEP’s Web site. EEP identified one new LWP
initiative in Cape Fear 06 CU to begin in FY 2008- 09 based on forecasted NCDOT
mitigation needs.
Local Watershed Planning Survey Summary
In July 2008, EEP s
well the plans are meeting the restoration and pro
communities. LWPs provide an important function within EEP by identifying potential
stream- and wetland- mitigation projects, but their utility extends beyond this program to
communities that adopt and implement the recommendations included within the plan.
EEP surveyed stakeholders of completed and in- progress LWPs to determine the types of
activities occurring in Local Watershed planning areas that support improvement and
protection of watersheds. Survey participants included local government representatives,
resource professionals, private consultants and regulatory agencies, among others. EEP
also conducted follow- up phone interviews with stakeholders willing to provide furthe
6
input on their Local Watershed planning involvement. A summary of survey results is
included in Appendix A.
Using a Web survey tool, EEP sent a 14- question survey to 230 LWP stakeholders. EE
received 42 completed sur
P
veys, an 18- percent response rate. Of those that responded, 89
ercent felt that the local watershed planning process was successful or somewhat
t in
plement
lan recommendations. Stormwater management, land preservation, riparian- buffer
er
hin the planning process to increase the
robability of implementing watershed- improvement recommendations. Participants also
, survey
p
successful in identifying the needs of the watershed. Sixty- seven percent of stakeholders
indicated that they have been able to use the products of the LWP, most notably the
watershed- management plan, water- quality data and restoration targeting.
Survey results and follow- up interviews indicate that stakeholders continue to benefi
Local Watershed planning areas by successfully pursuing grant funding to im
p
reforestation, agricultural best management practices ( BMPs), and citizen outreach are
highlighted activities implemented by survey respondents. Funding sources for these
activities include 47 percent from the N. C. Clean Water Management Trust Fund
( CWMTF), local funding sources ( 30 percent), Agriculture Cost Share Program ( 27
percent) and Section 319 grants ( 25 percent). In addition, 20 percent of participants
stated that they are implementing watershed- improvement ordinances such as buff
requirements and stormwater runoff policies.
Suggestions for improvement of the Local Watershed planning process included
incorporating landowner involvement earlier wit
p
expressed concerns about the amount of time required to produce a plan. Overall
participants responded favorably to the Local Watershed planning process, with 77
percent stating that they would partner again with EEP on a Local Watershed planning
effort ( the remaining respondents were: " Yes, if things were changed" [ five respondents],
“ No” [ one respondent], " N/ A" [ three respondents]), with two not responding.
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
The primary purpose of EEP is to produce watershed restoration and preservation
and other BMPs) that meet regulatory mitigation
requirements with respect to type, quality and compliance schedule in the most cost-a.
tinue to be, critical to EEP’s
success in meeting mitigation needs throughout the state. For more details on the
df
projects ( stream, wetland, stormwater
effective way, while maximizing environmental return for the State of North Carolin
The maximization of environmental returns from implemented projects is achieved
through the watershed- planning- based approach.
EEP utilizes DBB and FD project- delivery methods to implement projects. Both of
these project- delivery methods have been, and con
different project delivery methods and the responsibilities of EEP staff for each, see
Section V of the FY 2006- 07 Annual Report:
http:// www. nceep. net/ news/ annualreport/ 2007/ EEP_ Annual_ Report_ 2006_ 2007. p
7
SYNERGIES BETWEEN WATERSHED PLANNING AND PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION
The foundation of comprehensive watershed restoration and protection is wate
planning. As EEP mature
rshed
s, more of the program’s restoration projects are correlated to
watershed goals. While a large amount of the mitigation credits currently managed by
m
s
EEP are reflective of watershed plans and targets, not all of the projects in the progra
are synchronized in this manner due to a number of factors, including projects that were
developed prior to the establishment of EEP, advanced mitigation timeline requirement
and reductions in MOA program mitigation needs. For more detailed information
regarding these factors see Section V of the FY 2006- 07 Annual Report:
( http:// www. nceep. net/ news/ annualreport/ 2007/ EEP_ Annual_ Report_ 2006_ 2007. pdf).
For many of the reasons outlined in the FY 2006- 07 Annual Report, EEP
to increase the percentage of projects implemented in watershed- planning areas utilizing
has continued
the DBB process. This year, 85 percent of projects implemented by EEP using the DBB
delivery process were located in watershed- planning areas ( See Figure 3). Fourteen
percent of the projects derived using the FD process were located in watershed- planning
areas.
Figure 3. Percentage of EEP Design Bid Build Projects Located in Planning Areas
0
20
40
60
80
100
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Project
Percentage
TLW TLW/ LWP
8
Figure 4. Design Bid Build Wetland Credits
54%
9%
37%
TLW
TLW/ LWP
OTHER
Figure 5. Design Bid Build Stream Credits
31% 34%
35%
TLW
TLW/ LWP
OTHER
EEP is committed to watershed- planning- based project delivery. However, as described
above, there are circumstances when EEP does allow and will continue to allow ( for both
DBB and FD) projects outside of the watershed- planning targets when the environmental
justification for such projects is substantial and consistent with watershed- planning
principles. Regardless, EEP in part measures performance through statistics that describe
how closely project locations line up with planning targets. The following figures
illustrate the synergies that have been achieved in the DBB program for wetland and
stream projects.
Projects delivered through the FD
program have not been as consistent
with watershed- planning targets as
would be desired ( 31 percent of
wetlands credits and 26 percent of
stream credits generated through FD
procurement are contained within
TLWs). EEP is committed to
improving the congruence of FD
projects and watershed- planning
targets. In the last few years, EEP has
increased the number of points given
to a project that is in a watershed
planning area during the technical
review of Requests for Proposals
( RFPs). EEP has found that this
incentive- based approach has not
eet
processes with the goal of maximizing watershed- planning- based
yielded the desired results. Therefore,
in the most recent round of RFPs, EEP
employed a new strategy in some areas
that required that FD projects be
located in TLWs in order to be
considered for contracting. EEP will analyze the results of the new approach and m
with FD providers to discuss those results. EEP continues to pursue the improvement of
both procurement
outcomes.
COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIPS
EEP relies heavily on collaborative partnerships w to
fulfill its mission of producing high- quality, cost- e
based on watershed planning. Local governments
watershed- planning and implementation process w
knowledge, landowner contacts, donation of easem n- EEP
funded watershed- restoration projects. State agenc
technical and local knowledge, landowner contact
and preservation partnerships and contracting capa
of those collaborative partnerships.
ith local, state and federal entities
ffective restoration and preservation
often provide invaluable input in the
ith respect to technical and local
ents and implementation of no
y partnerships provide resources,
s, shared data, watershed restoration
bilities. This section highlights a few
9
Local Governments/ Municipalities
as
s watershed- management challenges in
eir area and provide EEP with the tools needed to implement cost- effective projects
ore than 30 projects with 17
overnments, including the City of Durham, Mecklenburg County, the Town of
f
TF
EEP staff collaborate with local governments on a daily basis. This communication h
resulted in valuable partnerships that benefit both EEP and local stakeholders with
respect to technical capabilities, shared data, policy and technical guidance, and project
implementation. Often, the most degraded watersheds exist in urbanized or developing
areas where land costs are high and project design and/ or construction is complicated.
Collaborative efforts allow local partners to addres
th
where they are most needed. EEP has partnered on m
g
Mooresville, the City of Kinston and others ( see Appendix A). These partnerships have
resulted in the restoration and protection of more than 18 miles of stream and 50 acres o
wetlands worth over $ 32 million. In addition, watershed- planning efforts have provided
local governments with the ability to leverage grant monies from Section 319, CWM
and other funding sources in pursuit of the implementation of stormwater BMPs, land
protection and watershed- coordinator positions.
State and Federal Partnerships/ Collaboration
Clean Water Management Trust Fund
As recommend in the 2007 Dye Management Report
( http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ DYE_ 2007_ EEP_ CWMTF_ Study_ Final_ Report. pdf)
prepared for the North Carolina legislature, EEP and CWMTF are continuing to inc
coordination on enhancement and restoration efforts. In CWMTF’s 2008 grant
application cycle, EEP staff assisted CWMTF field representatives with field reviews of
proposed restoration projects. EEP staff also performed a review of all 2008 applicatio
to determine if projects occurred in watershed- planning areas, and if so, wrote letters of
support for those projects.
In addition to the above efforts, EEP and CWMTF are partnering within three wa
located in different regions of the state: Big Harris Creek ( Broad basin), Upper Rocky
River ( Yadkin basin), and Upper Neuse ( Neuse basin). EEP/ CWMTF project teams will
work together to develop recommendations on strategies that address aquatic- resource
issues through innovative project partnerships, educational outreach, and community
support of watershed issues. These recommendations will be presented to EEP and
CWMTF program executives. The goal is to augm
rease
ns
tersheds
ent each program’s resources, both
me and financial, to achieve targeted watershed benefits.
ivision of Soil and Water Conservation
h the Division of Soil and Water Conservation
to work with local Soil and Water
tion
ti
D
In August 2007, EEP signed a contract wit
( DSWC). By partnering with the DSWC, EEP is able
Conservation Districts ( SWCDs) throughout the state on stream- and wetland- restora
projects. Local SWCDs provide an important resource through their knowledge of farm
management strategies and agricultural BMPs as well as their relationships with
landowners within the watershed. In FY 2007- 08, EEP funded more than $ 100,000 of
10
agricultural BMPs, including cattle- exclusion fencing, wells and watering troughs in
association with stream- restoration projects, and has scoped an additional $ 300,000 on
additional projects. By partnering with SWCDs, EEP is able to restore degraded systems,
macroinvertebrate community data, fish community data, ambient water quality data,
a
her
imagery and species information, NHP identified
lso
s
pare
abitat quality in all of the state’s river basins.
recognizes
at WRC is uniquely qualified to provide these services because of its responsibilities
e
directly address sources of pollution and help ensure long- term project success while
furthering the water- quality improvement goals of both EEP and DSWC.
United States Geological Survey
EEP continued its cooperative support for U. S. Geological Survey ( USGS) gauging
station data collection in two of its LWP areas-- Fishing Creek in the upper Tar- Pamlico
River basin and White Oak in the White Oak River basin. The data from these stations
are used for integrated interpretation of instream conditions in conjunction with benthic
chemical water quality data, toxicity bioassay data, and in some cases for water quality
and quantity model calibration. These data are collected as a part of the USGS's national
network of gauging and water- quality monitoring stations. Specific data from the Fishing
Creek and White Oak gauging stations were analyzed and presented at the 2007 N. C.
Water Quality Forum held in Charlotte, as part of other ongoing research projects.
Natural Heritage Program
With funding provided by EEP, the N. C. Natural Heritage Program ( NHP) completed
statewide analysis to identify areas of high- quality habitat important to species sensitive
to landscape integrity. These high- quality habitats, or core areas, are primarily identified
based on functional considerations – response of species to habitat fragmentation – rat
than on rarity or, in the case of natural communities, exceptional quality.
Using data that included GIS, aerial
core areas that indicate where target species groups, or guilds, reside. The analysis a
identifies inter- core area connectors that serve as links between core areas and are likely
to support dispersal by guild members. Overall, NHP mapped 267 core areas, covering
15,483 square miles of priority habitat and a total of 83 inter- core connectors.
With the completion of the assessment, EEP gains an important tool to enhance both it
LWPs and RBRP planning. For LWPs, the assessment provides a means of ranking
conservation priorities for project implementation. For RBRPs, the assessment informs
planners of the abundance of quality and high- functioning forest and wetland habitat
within a river basin. This information is critical to gauging the assets that are present
within a river basin and, because the data is to be complete statewide, is ideal to com
h
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
In January 2006, the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission ( WRC) and EEP entered into
an MOA to establish a working relationship between the agencies. The WRC agreed to
complete stream- and wetland- associated restoration work, maintenance, monitoring and
research activities at specific, unique mitigation sites managed by EEP. EEP
th
and experience managing North Carolina’s fish and wildlife resources. To formalize th
11
agreement, WRC entered into a formal contract with EEP that covers the period from Jan
9, 2006 to Jan. 8, 2009.
.
h
out
orth Carolina Division of Water Quality Section 319 Grant Program
ers the Section 319 Grant Program,
e
g
0- foot stream restoration project. The Dye Branch Project,
cated in Iredell County, was identified as part of the Upper Rocky River/ Clarke Creek
r
dditional Watershed Management Partnerships
g with EEP
er tracts in the Wilson Creek watershed ( upper
Catawba basin) by the Foothills Conservancy [ consistent with goals of the
ver and Kerr
Scott Reservoir LWPs];
To date, EEP has tasked WRC with a variety of projects, including restoration and
maintenance activities. In FY 2007- 08, WRC had 11 active assignments, two of whic
were new authorizations, and WRC completed work on one request. EEP has placed a
major emphasis on closing out projects constructed under WRC’s previous agreement
with NCDOT and now assumed by EEP. These projects are all scheduled to be closed
by the end of 2009.
N
The Nonpoint Source Program of DWQ administ
which funds local jurisdictions and nonprofit organizations ( such as universities and
environmental education partnerships) to restore impaired waters and improv
management of problems such as stormwater runoff. EEP participated in the review of
applications to the Section 319 Grant Program by scoring proposals and attendin
interviews with applicants in person.
In addition, EEP received Section 319 funding to implement a stormwater BMP project
in association with a 3,00
lo
LWP and is located in an urban watershed that receives large amounts of stormwate
runoff. EEP completed the BMP installation in 2006 and is working with NCSU and
DWQ to collect water- quality data to evaluate the effectiveness of nutrient removal.
Construction of the stream- restoration project was completed in July 2008.
A
􀂾 Several stakeholder groups that have worked or are currently workin
LWP initiatives in Western North Carolina have utilized LWP products to support
their CWMTF applications for various non- mitigation watershed projects.
CWMTF grant awards approved in the summer of 2008 include the following
[ note: name of associated LWP effort in brackets]:
􀂃 Acquisition of riparian- buff
Lake Rhodhiss regional watershed planning effort, of which the Lower Creek
LWP is a part];
􀂃 Stormwater master planning and BMPs for the Town of Sparta in Alleghany
County ( New River basin), as identified in the Bledsoe Creek Watershed
Management Plan [ Little River and Brush Creek LWP];
􀂃 Funding of agricultural BMPs for water quality improvement in the upper
Yadkin River basin, to be implemented by the DSWC [ Ararat Ri
12
􀂃 Planning monies for development of the Ararat River Corridor Conservation
& Greenway Plan ( Surry County), to be administered through the Northwest
Piedmont Council of Governments [ Ararat River LWP];
􀂃 Restoration planning for the Town Creek watershed, in Clay County, to be
implemented by the Hiwassee River Watershed Coalition [ Peachtree- Martins
Creek LWP]; and
dec 8.
􀂾 in
per
Ten dmore area. A preliminary list of likely impassable
be f
alre s.
􀂾 EEP
watershed restoration strategies for the Lower Creek watershed. The Caldwell
Low
􀂾 EP continues to pursue non- traditional wetland mitigation credit in the Catawba
ch,
enefits to a natural wetland in a watershed where traditional wetland- restoration
􀂾
􀂾 EEP participated in a multi- party MOU to support the Chatham Conservation
am County.
􀂃 Little Tennessee stream- and riparian- restoration program, to be implemented
by the Macon County Soil and Water Conservation District [ Franklin to
Fontana LWP].
These CWMTF grant awards total more than $ 6 million. Additional funding
isions for EEP- supported watershed grants will be made in November 200
EEP partnered with U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, WRC, NCDOT, and others
forming a collaborative study of fish passages in streams that drain to the Little
nessee River near the Nee
road and driveway stream crossings was developed. Problematic crossings will
urther evaluated and prioritized for replacement. Project partners have
ady received funds to replace one to two priority crossing
has continued to work with the Lower Creek Advisory Team to implement
and Burke County SWCDs applied for and received a Section 319 grant to fund a
er Creek Watershed Coordinator for the next three years.
E
03050103 CU. The purpose of the effort is to seek a flexible mitigation approa
allowing EEP to receive credit for implementing BMPs that provide similar
b
opportunities are severely limited.
NCSUs Watershed Education for Communities and Officials received $ 199,000
in EPA Section 319 grant funds to pursue conservation and restoration in Rocky
River, an EEP LWP area where the plan was completed in 2005.
Partnership ( CCP). EEP entered into this partnership to work creatively with
other CCP participants to meet Chatham County’s conservation needs. CCP
began in 2007 as a proactive approach to better plan for growth in the county.
EEP’s Cape Fear Rocky River LWP is located in western Chath
􀂾 Chapel Hill and Carrboro partnered to receive $ 370,000 in Section 319 grant
funds to support restoration and BMP implementation in Bolin Creek, a
subwatershed within the Morgan and Little Creek LWP area.
13
Environmental Education and Outreach
EEP a
outreac
NCDEN nel hosted the
ast and crew of Aquakids, an award- winning TV show for young teens broadcast into
100 -
quality
North C s in
central
accessi sode
scheduled to air in late 2008 and may lead to further collaborations in the future.
EEP co EEP
restorat r Teachers), an
ternational program that distributes classroom- ready teaching aids to K- 12 instructors.
he materials promote responsible stewardship through an interdisciplinary water science
itigation sites serve as excellent
o
re
bout EEP projects.
st ff participated in a variety of opportunities for environmental education and
h during the past fiscal year, and participated with ongoing efforts of the
R Education and Outreach Working Group. In June, EEP person
c
million households nationwide. The Baltimore- based show concentrates on water
issues for its programming, and approached EEP about filming a segment in
arolina. For the episode, EEP staff took the Aquakids contingent to three site
North Carolina to demonstrate the impacts to water quality from livestock
ng rural streams, and EEP’s restoration efforts in such circumstances. The epi
is
ntinued to build upon efforts to engage and educate schools located near
ion projects. EEP promoted Project WET ( Water Education fo
in
T
and education program on water resources. EEP m
outdoor classrooms for multiple teaching components.
EEP also continued to improve its Web site, launching a series of updates and
reconfigurations in December in response to user input to an on- line survey. EEP is als
making progress toward the implementation of a GIS- based web portal in the coming
months. The improvements are designed to satisfy the desire of the regulatory
community for simple access to EEP restoration and monitoring plans and eventually will
be available to the general public. EEP staff is developing voice- thread Web sites
( collaborative, multi- media slide shows that invite public input) for mitigation projects,
promoting online interaction between EEP and individuals interested in learning mo
a
Finally, as a part of the program’s daily work processes, EEP continued to educate
landowners and municipal, county and state personnel about the program. Education
efforts also included presentations and exhibits for legislative committees, civic clubs, the
N. C. State Fair and public- and private- sector conferences throughout the year.
14
III: Financial Accounting, Cost Data and Property Acquisition
REVENUE, EXPENDITURES, AND ENCUMBRANCES
The figures and tables below depict expenditures and end- of- year balances for the MOA
Program ( NCDOT stream and wetland progr ), the Wetlands Restoration Program
Trust Fund, the MOU Program ( general public stream and wetland mitigation program),
and the buffer and nutrient offset programs. An accounting of beginning balances,
revenues, expenditures, cash balances, encum rances and unencumbered balances is
provided.
Revenues collected by EEP through its four mitigation programs are used to implement
restoration projects where they will provide maximum environmental benefits to the
state’s natural resources. A small part of EEP’s revenues is used to administer the
program. EEP receives no state appropriations ( some historic appropriations remain in
the Wetlands Restoration Program Trust Fund but will soon be exhausted).
Fund
Figure 6 provides an accounting of the MOA fund and applies to the mitigation
f the NCDOT, mitigation
roduction and payments are programmed on a cash- flow basis. As a result, EEP invoices
am
b
2984: MOA Program
program
supplied to the Department of Transportation. At the request o
p
NCDOT for the actual cost for the work being processed to include administration,
payments made to engineers, contractors, and full delivery providers.
Figure 6: MOA Program Fund 2984 Fiscal Year 2007- 08
Fund 2984 Actual Amounts
Beginning balance $ 16,099,120.68
Revenues $ 28,602,257.54
Expenditures $ 42,072,862.06
Ending Balance $ 2,628,516.16
Encumbrances $ 79,529,964.90
Future Yr. Obligations $ 76,901,448.74
$ 90,000,000.00
$ 40,000,000.00
$ 50,000,000.00
$ 60,000,000.00
$ 70,000,000.00
$ 80,000,000.00
Beg. Balance
Revenues
Expenditures
Ending Balance
$ 30,000,000.00
$ 0.00
$ 10,000,000.00
$ 20,000,000.00 Encumbrances
Future Year
Obligations
15
EEP invoices NCDOT on a quarterly basis and secures only those funds required to pay
anticipated operating costs for the upcoming quarter. Future year obligations are
guaranteed to be paid in accordance with an MOA between NCDOT and NCDENR. This
information is reported quarterly during routine invoicing processes. Also, EEP is
audited quarterly by the NCDOT Inspector General’s office and has been audited by the
Federal Highways Administration.
Fund 2980, Wetlands Restoration Program Trust Fund, is the repository for
appropriated dollars and was established by the General Assembly. In 1997, the General
Assembly provided a one- time initial appropriation of seed dollars for the former
Wetlands Restoration Program. Th ance for this fund is $ 14,683.61.
aining encumbra is ye ill be closed out sometime
the next fiscal yea
unds 2981, 2982, 2982- 9829: The MOU, Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset
rogram Funds
igure 7 below provi n LF general public wetland
nd stream restoration program storation ILF Program
982) and the Nutrient Offset Reduction ILF Program ( 2982- 9829).
Fund 2981, MOU ILF Program, is a voluntary, statewide receipt- based ILF program.
Land- disturbing activities that require Section 404 or Section 401 permits often require
e unencumbered bal
Rem nces will be paid th ar and this fund w
in r.
FPF
des an accounting of fu
( 2981), the Ri
ds for the MOU I
a parian Buffer Re
( 2
Figure 7: Funds 2981, 2982, 2982- 9829; Fiscal Year 2007- 08
$ 30,000,000.00
$ 35,000,000.00
$ 25,000,000.00 Beg. Balance
$ 5,000,000.00
$ 10,000,000.00
$ 15,000,000.00
$ 20,000,000.00 Revenues
Expenditures
Ending Balance
Encumbrances
Unencumbered
Balance
$ 0.00
Beg. Balance $ 31,421,790.14 $ 2,617,656.97 $ 5,385,257.95
Revenues $ 12,999,693.73 $ 1,318,121.64 $ 5,622,143.37
Expenditures $ 15,960,457.66 $ 827,401.67 $ 245,172.14
Ending Balance $ 28,461,026.21 $ 3,108,376.94 $ 10,762,229.18
Encumbrances $ 19,265,042.20 $ 1,314,576.34 $ 1,473,270.57
Unencumbered Balance $ 9,195,984.01 $ 1,793,800.60 $ 9,288,958.61
2981 2982 2982- 9829
16
compensatory mitigation as specified by USACE or DWQ. The general public,
commercial and residential developers, as well as non- NCDOT governmental agencies
including municipalities and military installations, may produce the mitigation
themselves, purchase credits from a private mitigation bank, or request mitigation from
EEP. Upon acceptance and payment, EEP provides the off- site compensatory mitigation
to satisfy regulatory requirements. The work may consist of reestablishment of wetlands
and reconstruction or enhancement to degraded streams. This fund helps the general
public by providing a service that is cost- effective and simplifies the permitting
processes.
EEP sought fee revisions for this fund as costs were not in line with the current fee
schedule. New fees have been established recently and the updated fees can be referenced
at the EEP Web site: http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ fee. htm.
Fund 2982, Riparian Buffer Fund, is the repository for monies related to the state’s
Riparian Buffer ILF Program for the Neuse, Tar- Pamlico, and parts of the Catawba and
Cape Fear River basins. Applicants seeking permits for unavoidable impacts to protected
buffers along stream systems may elect to produce the mitigation themselves, purchase
redits from a private mitigation banks or pay EEP to produce the mitigation and satisfy
on-e
uctions from a private mitigation bank or pay a fee to EEP to produce the
itigation. The types of projects produced by EEP may consist of best management
the
on of mitigation sites.
c
permit needs. Revenues collected are used to contract engineering, construction, land
acquisition and long term protection of mitigation sites. The types of projects produced
consist of reestablishment and protection of buffers ( primarily involving planting
vegetation) along degraded streams and river banks in the protected basin.
Fund 2982- 9829, Nutrient Offset Fund, is the repository for funds of the Nutrient
Offset ILF Program. This program has been in place for the Neuse River basin since
1998. In March 2006, the Tar- Pamlico River basin was added. Applicants seeking
permits for construction related impacts to uplands may elect to undertake additional
site nutrient reduction measures to meet nutrient reduction requirements, purchas
nutrient red
m
practices or vegetated buffers that will reduce nitrogen and phosphorous loading into
river basins and estuaries. Revenues collected are used to contract engineering,
construction, land acquisition and secure long term protecti
Based on a study commissioned by the General Assembly and conducted by RTI
International, the legislature set the fees for the Nutrient Offset ILF Program effective
September 1, 2007. The fees can be referenced at http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ fee. htm.
COST OF MITIGATION DELIVERY
Total project costs are the sum of costs associated with multiple project steps including
land acquisition; project design; project construction; maintenance; monitoring for
project success; and long- term stewardship of the perpetually protected prop
erty. In
ddition a small amount of program monies are associated with funding staff to oversee
the contracting, awards, project delivery and administration. All design, construction and
a
17
monitoring activities ( which make up the vast majority of program expenditures) are
outsourced to private- sector companies. EEP employs two primary outsourcing metho
for its project procurement:
􀁹 Full Delivery ( FD)- requests for proposals ( RFPs) are issued for specific types,
amounts and locations of compensatory mitigation and one single contrac
issued for the entire project from acquisition to monitoring. The types of firm
participating in this process include private mitigation bankers and enginee
firms with construction contracting capabilities.
􀁹 Design- Bid- Build ( DBB) - EEP acquires the project site through the S
Property Office, contracts for design through a private environmental
ds
t is
s
ring
tate
consulting firm, bids out the construction to private contractors, and employs a
od
g
verage per- unit costs of project implementation for the last fiscal year have been
ts at an average of $ 41,817.60 per unit.
The fee s
mitigatio
rule maki
costs pres 82- 9829), fees were set by the
N. C. G ver
Basin and rus in the
Tar- Paml
costs con w
nutrient r
implement the least cost reduction projects, and that EEP transition to an actual cost
ethod for assessing payment to participate in the program. A progress report on
ed to the General Assembly in September of 2008
consulting firm for the monitoring. This is the standard contracting meth
administered through the Department of Administration and the State Buildin
Commission.
EEP Project Costs for FY 2007- 08
A
calculated by examining both FD and DBB contracts.
In FY 2007- 08, EEP obtained:
• 66,748 total stream mitigation units at an average of $ 274 per unit;
• 4.65 total riparian wetland mitigation units at an average of $ 43,406 per unit;
• 2.85 total non- riparian wetland mitigation units at an average of $ 40,718 per unit; and
• 31.96 total buffer acre uni
chedule over the past year was below actual costs for the wetland and stream
n program ( 2981) and the nutrient offset program ( 2982- 9829). EEP, through
ng, was able to increase fees for its ILF program to levels more in line with
ented above. For the Nutrient Offset Program ( 29
eneral Assembly to be $ 28.35 per pound nitrogen for projects in the Neuse Ri
$ 21.67 per pound nitrogen and $ 28.62 per tenth of pound for phospho
ico River basin. These fees were set based on an analysis of buffer restoration
ducted by RTI International. The General Assembly also required that all ne
eductions take place in the same CU as the impact payment, that EEP
m
transitioning to actual cost was provid
( http:// www. nceep. net/ pages/ FINAL_ ERC_ NO_ Progres_ Report_ 09- 12- 08. pdf).
EEP continues to take measures to produce cost effective mitigation through such items
actors on wetland and stream construction techniques. As
nderstanding improves, it translates to increased competition within a larger bidding
as training of construction contr
u
pool.
18
Cost Analysis of Private Mitigation Banks
Reporting requirements of G. S. 143 214.13 require EEP to compare the cost of
ix
lanning,
d
ull Delivery Program
stream and/ or wetland). Providers are required to submit both a technical
roposal and a cost proposal for each prospective submittal. The technical proposal
etails: 1) the experience, qualifications and financial stability of the firm submitting the
e site that make it suitable for restoration;
n, both
.
e
ate, develop and implement a restoration plan, and monitor the project for five years to
he restoration meets established success criteria.
for
12,136 and 33.5 riparian wetland
itigation units at a cost of $ 1,205,125.00.
s,
g.
mitigation between the EEP projects and private mitigation banks. To obtain the data
necessary to accomplish this task, a Web- based survey requesting restoration cost
information was sent to the sponsor of each approved bank in North Carolina. Append
C includes a listing of banks that were requested to respond, and a copy of the survey is
included. There were no responses from private mitigation banks for FY 2007- 08.
Contracts
The science of natural- systems restoration has advanced considerably over the past
decade. Because of this, and in addition to regulatory requirements, watershed p
design and monitoring approaches continue to evolve. As such, EEP utilizes multiple
contracting methods to address the myriad of tasks necessary to plan, implement an
monitor natural systems restoration projects.
F
The FD Program procures compensatory mitigation by issuing RFPs through the
Department of Administration. Each RFP specifies the river basin and CU within which
mitigation is being sought, and the amount and type of mitigation needed ( i. e., riparian
buffer,
p
d
proposal; 2) the geomorphologic features of th
and 3) the conceptual plan for restoring the site to a more natural, stable conditio
physically and biologically. The cost proposal provides a unit cost ( i. e., per buffer
mitigation unit, stream mitigation unit or wetland mitigation unit) for the submittal
Qualifying proposals are evaluated based on the technical merits of the proposed
restoration and the overall per- unit cost. Firms associated with selected proposals enter
into a contract with EEP to convey a conservation easement on the project area to th
st
verify that t
There are currently 21 firms that have FD contracts with EEP, indicating widespread
participation by the environmental consulting/ mitigation banking community. In FY
2007- 08, EEP entered into seven new FD contracts ( with five different FD providers)
30,532 stream mitigation units at a cost of $ 7,1
m
Design- Bid- Build Program
EEP utilizes On- call Design and Consulting Services Authorizations to contract with
private design and consulting firms for professional services for all stages of project
development including: watershed planning, environmental resource investigation
restoration site design and construction management, and post- construction monitorin
The use of on- call consultants is authorized by the State Building Commission as
described in the N. C. Administrative Code ( see 01 NCAC 30D). Since 2002, the State
19
Building Commission has approved four on- call authorizations to EEP as described
following table:
Table 1. NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program On- Call
Authorizations
in the
Authorization Date Effective
# of Firms
Authorized
Total
Authorization
2002 Oncall 4/ 18/ 02 - 4/ 17/ 04 15 $ 10,500,000
2004 Oncall 4/ 1/ 04 - 3/ 31/ 06 22 $ 15,400,000
2005 Oncall 8/ 23/- 05 – 8/ 22/ 07 21 $ 14,700,000
2006 Oncall 12/ 12/ 06 – 12/ 11/ 08 31 $ 21,700,000
Design and Construction
EEP also utilizes NCDENR and federal agencies to provide planning, design,
-
e
l Contracted Services
construction and monitoring services. This use of these agencies is authorized by
NCDENR as described in the N. C. Administrative Code ( see N. C. General Statue 143
59).
Total Contracted Services
In FY 2007- 08, 61 new design and construction contracts were awarded. The total valu
of new design and construction contracts was $ 9,301,008.06.
Table 2. Tota
Fiscal Year 2007- 08
Total Watershed and Project Planning Services ( 12) $ 404,537.25
Total Design Services ( 10) $ 1,984,386.00
Total Construction Services ( 15) $ 3,872,912.00
Total Maintenance and Repair Services ( 6) $ 459,725.60
Total Monitoring Services ( 18) $ 2,579,447.21
Total ( 61) $ 9,301,008.06
iscal Year 2007 ndors
$ 41,685,254.38 for FY 2007- 08. Figure 8 ( top of the next
ction, but
f
F - 08 Payments to Ve
Payments to vendors totaled
page) illustrates payments by contract type: Full Delivery, Design and Constru
does not include any costs for property acquisition. Appendix E provides a listing o
payments by contract type and vendor.
20
Figure 8: Fiscal Year 2007- 08 Design Bid Build - Contract Payments by Type
Construction, 15%
Design, 14%
Full Delivery, 71%
PROPERTY ACQUISITION: FY 2007- 08
associated with
preservation and restoration projects, totaling more than 1,370 acres. Two of the
acquisitions were outright purchases, three were construction easements, one was an
allocation of a conservation easement from another state agency, one was an access
easement, one was a modification of an existing conservation easement, and 72 were
acquisitions of conservation easements. All properties that closed between July 1, 2007
and June 30, 2008 are shown in Appendix E ( ii). Acreages are included for sites that
have been surveyed to date. Landowners have formally agreed to give EEP the right to
acquire an easement or property for all sites listed in Appendix E ( iii), Properties
Optioned.
operties acquired since the inception of the
than 46,700 acres have been purchased or
During this fiscal year, the State Property Office closed on 80 parcels
Cumulative Properties is an inventory of all pr
Wetlands Restoration Program in 1996. More
donated. The full inventory of these acquisitions is presented in Appendix E ( i).
21
IV: Program Inventory Status
his section provides detailed tables and charts regarding mitigation production. EEP
acks and is accountable for mitigation production in 17 river basins, 54 CUs and for 15
itigation types.
TREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION INVENTORY
T
tr
m
S
t the end of FY 2007- 08, EEP had produced or inherited 1,666,838 linear feet of stream
nd 21,116 acres of wetland mitigation, in addition to High Quality Preservation ( HQP)
ssets. The table below is a summary of mitigation assets by river basin and type. The
ata are also summarized by the primary mitigation program that funded the development
f the assets ( MOU or MOA programs).
Table 3: EEP Total Assets FY
Aa
a
do
07 – 08
22
Note: EEP’s mitigation assets and requirements are accounted for on a CU basis, not by
river basin. This table, along with Table 5, is intended as a summary. A complete listing
of these tables by river basin and CU can be found in the EEP’s Fourth Quarterly Report
to USACE, FY 2007- 2008, located on the EEP Web site at:
http:// www. nceep. net/ news/ eeppublications. htm.
Current Inventory of Asset Credits
Table 5 on the following page lists net- asset credits by river basin for FY 2007- 08. These
are the current inventory assets after application of credits to compensatory- mitigation
requirements. Remaining asset credits are also summarized by credit amounts in the
MOA and MOU programs. Assets in this table have been converted to restoration and
restoration- equivalent credits. Restoration equivalent credits are credits that can only be
used to offset mitigation requirements after the 1: 1 impact to restoration requirement has
been met. HQP gross and net assets are summarized in the next section.
At the end of FY 2007– 08, EEP had net inventory assets of both restoration and
restoration equivalent of:
• Stream: 671,001.03 credits;
• Riparian: 2,850.65 credits;
• Nonriparian: 6,697.47 credits; and
• Coastal marsh: 130.08 credits.
Total net inventory assets are the sum of Table 5 ( Net Inventory of Asset Credits) below.
These inventory assets represent progress that EEP has achieved to produce mitigation in
advance of permits. These mitigation assets are available to offset future permit
requirements, especially for NCDOT. The advancement of mitigation ahead of permitted
impacts is environmentally preferable and is an important tenet of the agreement among
NCDOT, NCDENR and USACE, which has allowed NCDOT to move forward with
about $ 4.8 billion in road- development projects without delays associated with
compensatory mitigation since 2003.
23
Table 4: EEP Net Inventory of Asset Credits, FY 07- 08
River Basin
Stream Restoration
Stream Restoration
Equivalent
Riparian Restoration
Riparian Restoration
Equivalent
Nonriparian Restoration
Nonriparian Restoration
Equivalent
Coastal Marsh
Restoration
Coastal Marsh
Restoration Equivalent
Broad 68,858 1,330.80 11.40 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Cape Fear 110,204 3,698 394.39 224.70 836.94 192.39 8.99 42.88
Catawba 30,836 39 7.24 2.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Chowan 12,249 1,217 94.73 3.00 4.99 2.00 0.00 0.00
French Broad 76,155 1,978 9.74 8.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Hiwassee 6,865 1,700 3.53 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Little Tennessee 9,890 3,084 57.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Lumber 8,163 350 51.98 18.19 567.97 60.28 0.00 0.00
Neuse 32,754 680 355.86 438.94 1,477.94 1,110.08 0.00 0.00
New 23,311 3,633 10.19 6.18 0.00 2.38 0.00 0.00
Pasquotank 15,578 0 393.04 21.25 1,124.70 30.76 1.51 35.91
Roanoke 43,836 2,551 143.67 105.92 115.46 685.00 0.00 0.00
Savannah 4,342 608 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00
Tar- Pamlico 29,312 0 121.04 100.67 234.71 89.64 0.24 37.92
Watauga 2,706 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
White Oak 20,080 401.98 19.10 2.01 83.08 48.10 2.64 0.00
Yadkin 143,867 10,726.80 214.73 29.56 15.01 10.73 0.00 0.00
Grand Total 639,004 31,997.30 1,888.59 962.06 4,465.79 2,231.68 13.38 116.71
Grand Total
MOU 29,988 1,023.80 154.20 42.41 47.90 52.49 3.27 0.24
Grand Total
MOA 609,016 30,973.50 1,734.39 919.65 4,417.89 2,179.19 10.11 116.47
STATEWIDE STATUS OF MOU AND MOA STREAM AND WETLAND
PROGRAMS
The fo ing graph rovid tewid umma tus o e MO MO
progra at the end FY 2 8. The aphs depict EEP current g sset
mitigation requirem s, out ng m emen nd p d fu
mitigation needs in its th EP exp to pr de over next years ease
note that EEP tracks credits and credit r ireme by prog ( MOU or MOA), by
im ion credits are a itigation
t n CU o , and within program unless the r ry s ha
a therwis e gra fle tate ict EP gram
g dits) and en ce m ion r ements are typ betw one
llow
ms
s p
of
ent
cred
e a sta
007- 0
standi
at E
e s
gr
itigation requir
ects
equ
ry sta
ovi
nts
f th
ts, a
the
ram
A and
ross a
rojecte
two
U
s,
ture
. Pl
pact type, and by wate
ype, w
rshed CU. All mitigat pplied within m
ithi
o
f impact egulato
ur
agencie
’
ve
pproved e. Thes phs re ct the s wide p e of E s pro matic
ains ( cre requirem ts. Sin itigat equir ically een
24
to two times as larg tual tted i ts, th ual lo are a xima ne-h
s th nitud equ
Figure 9 displays the status of stream re ents ssets uced both
M OA p s instituted 1,534,937.27 credits of stream
m and acc itiga equ 108 s — epres
o llion ad stream ed ad m n h n dev ed
for future mitigatio s as per op ag nts O MO
m program tan quir s equ ,919 ts ( low f
f escriptio
Fi Sta P Str Mitig ogr Credi
e as ac permi mpac e act sses ppro tely o
alf to two- third e mag e of r irements shown.
quirem and a prod ( for the
OU and M rograms). Currently EEP ha
itigation epted m tion r irements of 485, credit this r ents
ver one mi vanced
n
cr its. The
e
vanced
re
itigatio
o
as bee
U
elop
need the rating eme f the M and A
itigation s. Outs ding re ement al 25 credi see be or
urther d n).
gure 9: tus of EE eam ation Pr am in ts
1,534,937
485,108
25,919
908,924.00
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
Credits
1,200,000
1,600,000
1,400,000
Stream
EEP Stream Assets
EEP Mitigation Requirements
EEP Outstanding Stream Requirements
Future Requirements
The generation of mitigation credits in advance of mitigation requirements is a foundin
principle of the MOA program. The advanced mitigation currently available in the
program is evidence that EEP is succeeding on this front. However, mitigation demand
over the next five years is expected to be very high. As shown in the Figure 9, NCDOT
and EEP are projecting mitigation needs of 908,924 stream credits over the next five
years. The majority of this mitigation need is related to NCDOT’s programmed TIP
projects and the mitigation- advancement schedule outlined in the Tri- Party MOA.
g
utstanding requirements represent mitigation needs that do not match ( type or CU
cation) invento ding
requirements which are detailed
O
lo ried assets. EEP has strategies in place to meet the outstan
in EEP’s quarterly reports at www. nceep. net. Section V
of this report contains additional compliance information.
25
Figure 10 displays the status of the wetland requirements and assets produced ( MOU and
MOA programs). Currently EEP is managing instituted assets of 13,118.76 wetland
credits with current requirements equaling 11,760.66 credits. The majority of credits
originated from the NCDOT mitigation program that existed prior to EEP’s formation.
These unused assets were transferred to EEP to be managed within the MOA program for
NCDOT’s future mitigation needs. Currently, outstanding requirements equal 15.96
wetland credits. As shown in the graph, NCDOT and EEP are projecting additional
mitigation needs of 2,791.28 credits over the next five years. On a statewide level, EEP
has achieved success for advance mitigation. However, much of the current advance
mitigation is focused in particular CUs, whereas the mitigation needs are spread more
evenly across the state. Thus, while some CUs have already achieved advanced
mitigation, others will require additional wetland- credit development over the coming
years.
Figure 10: Status of EEP Wetland Program in Credits
13,118.76
14,000.00
8,000.00
10,000.00
12,000.00
EEP Assets
EEP Mitigation Requirements
EEP Outstanding Wetland Requirements
Future Requirements
2,000.00
4,000.00
6,000.00
2,791.28
1,170.66
15.96
0.00
Wetland
Statewide Status of Riparian Buffer and Nutrient Offset ILF Programs
The status of the Riparian Buffer ILF Program is illustrated in the table below. This
program is 100% compliant and has provided all current buffer requirements . EEP has
advanced riparian buffer credits of 34.59 in Cape Fear, 23.13 in Catawba, 106.73 in
Neuse, and 44.57 in Tar- Pamlico. Of this, 27.61 acres of payments ( mostly in the Neus
have already been received and will be due in the future.
e)
Table 5. Riparian Buffer ILF Program Status FY 2007- 08
26
The status of the Nutrient Offset ILF Program is shown
in the table below. Nutrient reductions were
completely met in the Tar- Pamlico basin for nitrogen
and phosphorus, but not in the Neuse River basin. In
2006, a revised increased fee schedule was authorized
via rulemaking by the Environmental Management
Commission. The revised fee schedule was, however,
reverted by the General Assembly while it completed a
cost study. During this period of time, EEP suspended
procurement of new nutrient- offset projects that exceeded the legislated rates.
Table 6. Nutrient Offset ILF Program Status FY 2007- 08
ects during this time could have
esulted in the complete depletion of the funds within this program without satisfying the
equired reduction 2006- 07 as nearly
3 percent
elow- cost fees. Currently, a revised fee has been passed by the legislature. These fees,
hile lower than previously authorized by the EMC, are sufficient, and EEP has begun
rocurement of projects with an expectation to meet requirements over the next two
years. EEP believes that most BMP- type ( e. g. stormwater BMP’s, constructed wetlands,
ts will not be fundable under the current fee schedule,
w
projects. Consequently, EEP expe f
riparian- buffer projects with a few
The suspension was necessary because collected fees during FY 2005- 06 through FY
2006- 07 were below the projected costs of implementing stormwater wetland and
riparian buffer nutrient- offset projects. Implementing proj
rr
in nutrients. This problem was magnified during FY
4 of the program’s total historical requirements were paid during FY 2006- 07 at
b
wp
etc.) nutrient- reduction projec
particularly since past payments ere below cost of BMPs or riparian- buffer restoration
cts that most new projects will be composed o
select stormwater BMPs and constructed wetlands.
27
V: Stream and Wetland Compliance
OA Stream
t the close of FY 2007- 08, the MOA program had achieved tremendous success in
stablishing advance mitigation as prescribed by the Tri- Party MOA. The amount of
dvance mitigation established within the program is summarized in the table below.
or the MOA program, stream compliance was 95.89 percent, riparian wetlands
ompliance was 98.80 percent, nonriparian wetlands compliance was 98.88 percent and
oastal marsh wetlands compliance was 100 percent. These figures represent increased
M and Wetland Compliance
Aea
Fc
c
compliance in each of these mitigation categories from the previous year. Table 5
displays requirements in credits, credits applied, and resulting compliance.
Outstanding requirements represent mitigation needs that do not match ( type or CU
location) inventoried assets. The magnitude of outstanding stream mitigation was 9,478.6
credits. The magnitude of outstanding riparian- wetland mitigation was 1.57 credits. A
complete listing of MOA permits and requirements not in full compliance and the
corresponding EEP CU Action Strategies can be found in the EEP’s Fourth Quarterly
Report, located on the EEP Web site.
Table 7. MOA Program Compliance
MOA Program
Stream
( credits)
Ripararian
( credits)
Nonriparian
( credits)
Coastal Marsh
( credits)
Total
Wetlands
( credits)
Mitigation Due 230,471.20 131.37 418.24 1.76 551.37
Mitigation Met 220,992.60 129.79 417.73 1.76 549.29
Mitigation Not Met 9,478.6 1.574 0.506 0 2.08
Compliance 95.89% 98.80% 99.88% 100.00% 99.62%
MOU Stream and Wetland Compliance
The MOU program experienced a similar degree of success during FY 2007- 08. As of
June 30, 2008, the MOU program had 988 total requirements. Of these, 956 are in full
compliance, seven have partial compliance and 25 are in non- compliance. Therefore the
EEP has 96.8 percent of all MOU requirements in compliance, 0.7 percent in partial
compliance and 2.5 percent in non- compliance. Of these non- compliant requirements, 23
were related to wetlan requirements. As in
the MOA program, ou eds that do not
match ( type or CU location) inventoried asse . Table 6 on the next page summarizes the
met, mitigation not met and compliance.
d requirements, and two were related to stream
tstanding requirements represent mitigation ne
ts
MOU program’s mitigation due, mitigation
28
Table 8. MOU Program Compliance
MOU ( credits) ( credits) ( credits) Marsh
( credits)
Wetlands
( credits)
Stream Ripararian Nonriparian Coastal Total
Mitigation Due 254,636.99 399.97 218.85 0.47 619.29
Mitigation Met 238,196.45 392.67 212.48 0.27 605.41
Mitigation Not Met 16,440.54 7.30 6.38 0.20 13.88
Compliance 93.54% 98.17% 97.09% 57.54% 97.76%
A complete listing of the MOU permits and requirements not in full compliance and the
ategies can be found in the EEP’s Fourth Quarterly
eport, located on the EEP Web site.
corresponding EEP CU Action Str
R
29
VI: Monitoring and Research
MONITORING
The EEP Monitoring Section is focused on four primary areas: 1) oversight of annual
onitoring for all restoration projects; 2) support to the Design/ Construction Section
oncerning maintenance/ repair for all restoration projects; 3) data management and
nalysis; and 4) project and program improvement.
fiscal year 2007- 2008, EEP had 238 projects ( both DBB and FD) in some phase of
onitoring, closeout, or long- term management. Most projects were in monitoring phases
f year 1 through 5. These projects totaled 876,874 linear feet of stream, and 13,401
cres of wetland restoration, enhancement, and preservation.
onitoring reports for all DBB projects are currently published on the EEP Web site at:
ttp:// www. nceep. net/ business/ monitoring/ Monitoring_ report_ web/ Projects_ in_ Monitori
mc
a
In
moa
Mhn
g. htm. It is anticipated that monitoring reports for FD projects will be posted before the
nd of calendar year 2008.
onitoring Results and Trends
hen reviewing stream- restoration projects, staff examines four types of geomorphic
ata: channel dimension ( cross sections), profile ( thalweg surveys), substrate ( particle
ze distributions), and engineered structure stability. The assessment of overall channel
success” is based on the consideration of these four metrics. However, it is important to
eep in mind that stream systems are dynamic, and are subject to perturbations of the
ontributing watershed and extreme weather conditions.
egetative success defined by the regulatory community requires standards of stem
ounts from year 1 through year 5 of monitoring with a minimum of 260 stems per acre
rviving at year 5. Hydrologic success criteria for wetlands is tied to a continuous
ercent saturation or inundation period during the growing season compared to the
ccess criteria and/ or compared to the reference wetland.
onsidering all the projects in an active monitoring stage, they showed collectively a
reater than 90% success for stream geomorphic criteria, vegetative success criteria, and
etland hydrologic success. This is a slight improvement from last year’s statistics.
Monitoring Related Acti
Beyond standard production activities, progress and accomplishments during FY 2007- 08
hree main areas: 1) new or refined data tools or data management
roducts; 2) guidance and policy documentation; and 3) training/ information
of
t or
The
or significant refinements of existing
ocuments) related to major project deliverables, asset verification, digital submission
e
M
Wd
si
“
kc
Vc
su
p
su
Cg
w
vities
revolved around t
p
dissemination. The first category included advancements in the standardization
scoping and financial data related to monitoring activities, and the developmen
refinement of geodatabases related to stream- assessment and stream- reference data.
second involved the production of new documents (
d
30
formatting, decision frameworks for project selection, monitoring and remediation,
quality control related to construction and data collection. The third included training for
program providers and staff, which revolved around optimization of reach- treatm
approaches, standardization of monitoring practices, Web po
and
ent
sting of project documents,
and practices that reflect consideration of project closeout ( validation) at each project
phase.
MAINTENANCE IMPROVEMENTS
Vegetation and Easement Maintenance
ce new standard informal contract templates that can
o
ve
ss. Preventative cost- saving
easures, along with corrective actions, may include herbicide application, replanting,
k
EEP staff has collaborated to produ
be applied to relatively small herbicide treatment and replanting contracts. Such
contracts for vegetation- driven maintenance are becoming increasingly necessary due t
easement encroachment, low stem- survival rates, and exotic- invasive plant infestations.
Once finalized and implemented, the new contract templates and supporting documents
will facilitate the management of contracts structured around preventative and correcti
measures for projects exhibiting a lack of vegetation succe
m
installation of easement boundary markers, reseeding, pruning and minor stream ban
repair.
PROJECT AND PROGRAM IMPROVEMENT RESEARCH
Vegetation Monitoring and Data Management
ous
ncoordinated vegetation monitoring methods to a refined data- management system that
nd federal guidelines, the 2008 annual CVS- EEP
ill not only improve the compatibility between prescribed species and site- specific
nvironmental variables ( i. e., soil type, elevation, slope, aspect, and hydrology), the
ficient and cost- effective than having designers
ather potentially misleading reference data for every project. Once the reference data
Fine tuning of the Carolina Vegetation Survey ( CVS)- EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation has continued and all new projects are required to utilize the new method as
outlined in the EEP mitigation- plan template. To facilitate this transition from numer
u
complies with current scientific a
Vegetation Workshop was conducted. During this two- day workshop, the majority of the
on- call firms and full- delivery providers were given comprehensive training necessary for
all aspects of applying the protocol, from mitigation- plan development to data delivery.
Consequently, an increasing percentage of all the 2008 EEP projects will have vegetation
monitoring data that is processed, summarized and delivered in an efficient automated
manner.
Vegetation Target Community Design Tools:
Through the collaboration between EEP and the CVS, tools derived from high- quality
natural community data are being developed with the potential to greatly improve species
lists and various other types of information pertaining to the restoration- target
communities that have traditionally been utilized by restoration designers. The resulting
tools w
e
methods for data delivery will be more ef
g
31
system is functional, some immediate reduction in design costs associated with reference
ring
e
d
a
y report to the regulatory agencies for review. The summary report is a synthesis
nd distillation of seven years worth of project data designed to provide an overall
ere submitted and
pproved for regulatory close- out during this fiscal year. The eight projects accounted
ement and preservation, and 49 acres
s
ithin a watershed context;
• increasing project success to reduce maintenance costs and the mitigation ratio;
• reducing the cost of monitoring through use of functional methods and other
lude:
• Carolina Vegetation Survey ( UNC, R. Peet and NCSU, T. Wentworth); and
nce standards for vegetation assessment ( ECU, R. Rheinhardt
t).
data collection can be expected, along with a much more substantial and gradual expense
reduction associated with increased planting- plan success over subsequent monito
years.
Project Closeout Activity
All projects conducted for the purpose of mitigation must be closed out once the
monitoring period is over. The purpose of closeout is to have regulatory validation on th
number and types of mitigation credits finally provided by the project. Once the require
monitoring period is complete and the project is deemed successful, EEP staff submits
summar
a
performance summary and rationale for closeout. Eight projects w
a
for 18,257 linear feet of stream restoration, enhanc
of wetland restoration, enhancement and preservation.
Research Program- Project Improvement
During FY 2007- 08, EEP has continued the research program begun in FY 2006- 07, and
continued or completed research begun in FY 2005- 06. The purpose of the research
program is to provide project- level and programmatic review and evaluation as feedback
to other EEP sections, and to help EEP fulfill MOA commitments. The goal is to
improve EEP effectiveness by increasing project success and reducing costs. Our
objectives are:
• improving cost- effective selection among project alternatives and design option
w
programmatic improvements; and
• helping to define a sound scientific basis for implementing new federal
regulations for compensatory mitigation, especially ecological performance
standards.
EEP research works through partnerships with state, local and federal government
agencies, universities, and non- governmental organizations. The program encompasses
three broad focus areas: functional assessment, catchment studies and restoration
methods.
Projects in the functional assessment focus area will improve the assessment of stream
and wetland condition at both project and watershed scales, and will be usable in
assessing both the need for and success of restoration. Ongoing or new projects in this
area inc
• Ecological performa
and M. Brinson and NCSU, T. Wentworth; new project under developmen
32
Projects completed during FY 2007- 08 include:
• Stream geomorphology reference database ( NCSU, G. Jennings); and
• Multivariate evaluation of vegetation success ( ECU, R. Rheinhardt; part of a
cooperative agreement with EPA Region IV).
Projects in the catchment focus area will demonstrate the effects that restoration projects
have on water quality, habitat and hydrology at larger s
cales and help select among
roject alternatives to better meet programmatic watershed- improvement goals. Ongoing
Project ocus area will serve to improve the success of
rest t
Ong n
• R. Peet and NCSU, T. Wentworth);
ns);
•
• stream restoration study, Mooresville, Iredell County ( NCSU, G.
e Branch BMP study, Mooresville, Iredell County ( NCSU, B. Hunt, and DWQ
���
USACE and EPA); and
t ( NC SAM; with DWQ and other
Res rc
include
p
projects in this area include:
• Big Harris Creek, Cleveland County ( NCSU, G. Jennings and DWQ WAT);
• Heath Dairy, Randolph County ( NCSU, G. Jennings, and DWQ WAT); and
• Unnamed tributary to Crab Creek, Alleghany County ( DWQ WAT).
Projects completed during FY 2007- 08 include:
• Survey of macrobenthos in restored coastal plain streams ( NCSU, G. Jennings).
s in the restoration- methods f
ora ion projects, to limit the need for maintenance and to improve cost- effectiveness.
oi g or new projects in this area include:
Carolina Vegetation Survey ( UNC,
• North River Farms Phase II monitoring, Carteret County ( NCSU, R. Eva
Ripshin Creek, Ashe County ( NCSU, G. Jennings); and
Dye Branch
Jennings, and DWQ WAT).
Projects completed during FY 07- 08 include:
• Dy
WAT).
EEP is also collaborating with state and federal agencies to develop innovative
approaches to mitigation and to develop and implement functional assessment methods.
Projects include:
• White Oak LWP ( with WPPI and ECU, M. Brinson);
• Aquatic organism passage study ( with NTMSC and USFWS);
Wetlands functional assessment implementation ( NC WAM; with DWQ, DCM,
• stream functional assessment developmen
NCDENR agencies, USACE and EPA).
ea h program objectives for FY 2008- 09
:
• Develop grant applications with researchers
in academia and sister agencies to broaden
project scope and reduce reliance on
NCDOT funding;
33
• Develop new projects to help define a sound scientific basis for ecological
performance standards ( to implement new federal regulations for compensatory
• Continuing to develop and assess new approaches for non- traditional mitigation;
will meet its commitment to implement
Continuing on- going contracts to help meet previously defined objectives.
regulations; in conjunction with USACE, EPA and DWQ);
• Continuing to define ways in which EEP
the N. C. Division of Marine Fisheries Coastal Habitat Protection Plan; and
•
34
VII: Stewardship
Photo courtesy Piedmont Land Conservancy
To qualify as compensatory mitigation, preserved and restored sites must be protected
from encroachment, conservation- easement violations and other forms of degradation in
perpetuity ( Wilmington District Process for Preservation of Mitigation Property, U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Nov. 25, 2003; C de of Federal Regulations, Vol. 73, No. 70,
Thursday, April 10, 2008, Rules and Regulations).
To ensure long- term protection of the conservation areas of the state, a Stewardship Task
Force was convened in 2004 to determine the most cost- effective and efficient method of
assuring perpetual protection of state- held conservation property interests, including
compensatory- mitigation properties. The tas force included members of the land- trust
community, Wildlife Resources, CWMTF and NCDENR divisions of Parks and
Recreation, Forest Resources and Coastal Management. The recommendation of the task
force was to establish an interest- bearing endowment account to fund perpetual
stewardship of easements held by the state on behalf of EEP and other NCDENR
agencies. A stewardship fund, the N. C. Conservation Lands Stewardship Endowment
Account, has been established to ensure that a non- reverting, interest- bearing account is
in place to fund the perpetual protection of EEP conservation easement areas and other
properties purchased by the progr itigation purposes.
Transfers of High Quality Preservation Sites to NCDENR Stewardship Program
Through a renewable three- year contractual MOA, the NCDENR Office of Natural
Resource Planning and Conservation, formerly the Office of Conservation and
Community Affairs, has assumed responsibility for stewardship of all HQP lands that
have been acquired to date by EEP, and has agreed to accept responsibility for closed- out
restoration sites that were acquired for use as compensatory mitigation by EEP. The
contractual agreement is renewable, but if terminated specifies that all information, files
o
k
am for compensatory m
35
and data will be returned to EEP or as otherwise directed by the NCDENR chief deputy
secretary.
The NCDENR Stewardship Program was created within the Office of Natural Resource
Planning and Conservation to oversee the long- term monitoring of conservation lands.
Transfers of endowment funds from EEP to the NCDENR Stewardship Program occur as
needed, but no more frequently than quarterly. It is anticipated that the interest in the
Stewardship Endowment Account will provide for long- term stewardship of these sites;
however, the endowment amounts will be evaluated at least annually to determine
whether the amount deposited per- site needs to be adjusted. The current long- term
monitoring endowment funds inspection of sites and boundaries, the production of
monitoring reports, and notification of the State Property Office and the funding agency
if encroachment or management issues are identified during site visits. Remedial actions
that can be resolved without legal assistance are considered minor conservation easement
violations or encroachment infractions. The Stewardship Program expects to be able to
resolve these minor violations. Enforcement of major legal violations will be carried out
by the N. C. Department of Justice, Attorney General’s Office.
he NCDENR Stewardship Program entered into a contractual agreement with the
2007.
al
anaged
T
Conservation Trust for North Carolina and 10 land trusts to monitor the HQP sites. The
results of the analysis of the actual costs of monitoring during the pilot year of the
stewardship agreement indicated that an adjustment in the endowment amount transferred
for each additional site was needed. Based on results of actual annual monitoring costs,
the endowment amount was adjusted upward to $ 20,000 per site for the last set of 14 high
quality preservation sites transferred during at the end of 2007. The interest gained on
the endowment account varies based on the financial climate, and the health of the fund
will be monitored closely by NCDENR.
The NCDENR Stewardship Program has accepted the responsibility for stewardship of
130 high quality preservation sites. The endowments for these sites were transferred in
three sets. EEP transferred endowments for long- term monitoring of conservation
easements for 86 high quality preservation sites to the NCDENR Stewardship Program in
the first two sets. Funding for the third and final set was transferred in December
Endowment funds of $ 14,000 per site were transferred for the first two sets. For the fin
set of 14 conservation easements, $ 20,000 per site was transferred. This increase was
based on the re- evaluation of the amount set aside in the endowments, actual cost of
monitoring the first two sets of sites, and the lower- than- expected interest gained on the
endowment fund. The endowment is housed an interest- bearing account that is m
by the state as a non- reverting account. Interest from the endowment is to be used to
fund the monitoring of these conservation easements or deed restrictions in perpetuity.
All HQP sites that were acquired by EEP have now been transferred to long- term
monitoring. HQP sites that were purchased by NCDOT right- of- way, such as Rhodes
Pond, Harris Farm and Broad River Greenway, have not been transferred, as the Board of
Transportation evaluates options for stewardship of these sites.
36
No endowment was transferred to the NCDENR Stewardship Program for 30 additional
HQP sites, which are to be managed by other government agencies, including State
Parks, WRC, and county park systems; however, NCDENR Stewardship has agreed to
house monitoring reports for those sites on the Stewardship Data Management System.
37
Appendices
38
Project Name River Basin CU County LWP Name Description
Philips Neuse 03020201 Wake Upper Swift Creek Wetland
Back Creek Yadkin 03040105 Mecklenburg Upper Rocky River/ Coddle Creek Stream/ Wetland
Bear Creek ( Phillips Tract) Cape Fear 03030003 Chatham Upper and Middle Rocky River Stream
Burnt Mill Creek ( Kerr Avenue
Wetland) Cape Fear 03030007 New Hanover New Hanover County BMP
Cato Yadkin 03040105 Mecklenburg Upper Rocky River/ Clarke Creek Stream
Charles Creek Pasquotank 03010205 Pasquotank Pasquotank Wetland
Corbett Tract Cape Fear 03030007 New Hanover New Hanover County Wetland
Elizabeth City State BMP Pasquotank 03010205 Pasquotank Pasquotank BMP
Freedom Park Catawba 03050103 Mecklenburg Charlotte LWP Stream
Irwin Creek Whitehurst Road Catawba 03050103 Mecklenburg Charlotte LWP Stream/ Wetland
Jacksonville Country Club White Oak 03030001 Onslow White Oak Stream/ BMP
Lake Wheeler Neuse 03020201 Wake Upper Swift Creek Wetland
McIntyre Creek @ Hornets Nest
Park Catawba 03050101 Mecklenburg Charlotte LWP Stream
Mildred Woods Tar- Pamlico 03020103 Edgecombe Middle Tar Pamlico Wetland
Mud Creek French Broad 06010105 Henderson Mud Creek Wetland
Sparta Bog New 05050001 Alleghany Little River and Brush Creek Wetland
UT to Rocky River ( Smith Tract) Cape Fear 03030003 Chatham Upper and Middle Rocky River Stream/ Buffer
Zack's Fork Ck RFP* Catawba 03050101 Caldwell Lower Creek Stream/ Wetland/ Buffer/ BMP
BMP ( Cary Barnes and Noble) Neuse 03020201 Wake Upper Swift Creek BMP
Greenbrier Creek Cape Fear 03030003 Chatham Upper and Middle Rocky River Stream/ Wetland
Wildcat Branch Cape Fear 03030004 Lee Cranes Creek Stream/ Wetland
Plum Creek Lumber 03040207 Brunswick Lockwoods Folly Wetland
Afton Run Yadkin 03040105 Cabarrus Upper Rocky River/ Coddle Creek Stream/ BMP
Caldwell Station Catawba 03050101 Mecklenburg Charlotte LWP Stream/ Wetland
Chapel Creek Cape Fear 03030002 Orange Morgan and Little Creeks Stream
Clear Creek French Broad 06010105 Henderson Mud Creek Stream
Coddle Creek Tributary ( Indian
Run) Yadkin 03040105 Cabarrus Upper Rocky River/ Coddle Creek Stream
Ellerbee Creek ( G) Neuse 03020201 Durham Ellerbe Creek Stream/ Buffer/ BMP
Goose Creek ( G) Neuse 03020201 Durham Ellerbe Creek Stream
Lower Creek Catawba 03050101 Caldwell Lower Creek Stream/ BMP
Mineral Springs Branch ( Burnt Mill
Creek) Cape Fear 03030007 New Hanover New Hanover County Stream/ BMP
Morgan Creek Floodplain Cape Fear 03030002 Orange Morgan and Little Creeks Wetland
Naked Creek Yadkin 03040101 Wilkes Upper Yadkin/ Kerr Scott Stream
Northgate Park ( Ellerbe) ( G) Neuse 03020201 Durham Ellerbe Creek Stream/ BMP
Purlear Creek Yadkin 03040101 Wilkes Upper Yadkin/ Kerr Scott Stream
Purlear Creek II Yadkin 03040101 Wilkes Upper Yadkin/ Kerr Scott Stream
UT to Hendricks ( G) Tar- Pamlico 03020103 Edgecombe Middle Tar Pamlico Stream/ Buffer
Warrior Creek Yadkin 03040101 Wilkes Upper Yadkin/ Kerr Scott Stream
Flintrock Farm Cape Fear 03030002 Rockingham Troublesome/ Little Troublesome Stream/ Wetland
BMP ( Town of Cary) Neuse 03020201 Wake Upper Swift Creek BMP
Lewis Creek French Broad 06010105 Henderson Mud Creek Stream
A i. Projects Located in LWP Areas*
39
Project Name River Basin CU County LWP Name Description
A i. Projects Located in LWP Areas*
Muddy Creek( Randolph/ Duncan
Properties) Catawba 03050101 McDowell Muddy Creek ( Non- EEP Plan) Stream
UT to Haw River Cape Fear 03030002 Alamance Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance Stream
Little Troublesome Cape Fear 03030002 Rockingham Troublesome/ Little Troublesome Stream/ Wetland
UT to Uwharrie Yadkin 03040103 Randolph Upper Uwharrie Stream/ Wetland
Glade Creek New 05050001 Alleghany Little River and Brush Creek Stream/ Wetland
Little Pine Creek II New 05050001 Alleghany Little River and Brush Creek Stream/ Wetland
UT to Crab Creek New 05050001 Alleghany Little River and Brush Creek Stream/ Wetland
UT to Zack's Fork Catawba 03050101 Caldwell Lower Creek Stream
Morgan Creek ( Bolin Stewardship
Tract) Cape Fear 03030002 Orange Morgan and Little Creeks Stream
Sharpe Wetland Preservation Cape Fear 03030002 Rockingham Troublesome/ Little Troublesome Stream/ Wetland
Swift Creek Watershed Wetlands Neuse 03020201 Wake Upper Swift Creek Wetland
Hoppers Creek - Melton Farm Catawba 03050101 McDowell Muddy Creek ( Non- EEP Plan) Stream/ Wetland
Dye Branch II Stream Restoration Yadkin 03040105 Iredell Upper Rocky River/ Clarke Creek Stream
Mooresville School Site - Rocky
River Yadkin 03040105 Iredell Upper Rocky River/ Clarke Creek Stream/ Wetland
Glade Creek II New 05050001 Alleghany Little River and Brush Creek Stream/ Wetland
UT Bear Creek ( Weaver/ McLeod
property) ( G) Cape Fear 03030003 Chatham Upper and Middle Rocky River Stream
Little Alamance Creek ( Burlington
Park) Cape Fear 03030002 Alamance Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance Stream
UT Rocky River - Harris Road
Middle Yadkin 03040105 Cabarrus Upper Rocky River/ Clarke Creek Stream/ Wetland
McKee Creek Yadkin 03040105 Cabarrus Upper Rocky River/ Coddle Creek Stream
UT Ramah Creek Yadkin 03040105 Mecklenburg Upper Rocky River/ Clarke Creek Stream
Brown Branch ( Willowbrook Park) Cape Fear 03030002 Alamance Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance Stream/ BMP
UT to Bald Creek French Broad 06010108 Yancey Bald Creek Stream
Buffalo Creek Neuse 03020201 Durham Little River Corridor Open Space Plan ( NonStream
Upper South Hominy Creek French Broad 06010105 Buncombe South Hominy Creek Stream
Martins Creek II Hiwassee 06020002 Cherokee Peachtree- Martins Creek Stream/ Wetland
Badin Inn Yadkin 03040104 Stanly Mountain/ Little Mountain Creeks Stream
Ut to Haw ( Bechom) Cape Fear 03030002 Alamance Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance Stream/ Wetland
UT to Haw ( Gwynn) Cape Fear 03030002 Alamance Travis, Tickle, Little Alamance Stream/ Wetland
UT to Martins Creek ( Contreras) Hiwassee 06020002 Cherokee Peachtree- Martins Creek Stream/ Wetland
* This list includes projects initiated by NCDOT that are located in LWP areas.
40
LWP Name River Basin 14- digit HU Initiation Date Comments Phase III Completion
Date ( Contractor)
Phase IV Status
Sep- 05
( Earth Tech)
3050105040040 Jul- 07
3050105040060 ( Earth Tech)
3050105040050
3030004020010 Sep- 04
3030004030010 ( Buck Engineering)
3030004040010
3030002060100 Dec- 04
3030002060070 ( Tetra Tech)
3030002060080
Dec- 02
( KCI)
3030002010010
3030002010030
3030003070010 Jun- 05
3030003070020 ( Tetra Tech)
3030003070050
3030004070010
3030004070020
3050101170010 Identified many stormwater BMPs/ retrofits and ~ 50,000 ft of
stream restoration
Jul- 03
3050101170020 Four EEP projects are underway ( CH2M Hill)
3050103020020
3050103020030
3050103020040
3050103020050
3050103020070
3050101080010 Jul- 06
3050101080020 ( MacTec)
Feb- 06
( Equinox)
6010105030020 Jan- 03
6010105030030 ( TVA supported this
planning effort)
6010105030040
Jan- 06
( Buck Engineering)
Cape Fear Assessment tasks completed May 2005 ( BLUE). Final
stakeholder summary and preliminary plan completed by
WECO in 2005. Several potential projects identified.
May- 08
Current mitigation needs are met. Viable projects available
for future mitigation needs.
Cranes Creek Dec- 01
Appendix A ii. Local Watershed Plans Completed through Phase III as of July 1, 2008
EEP stream restoration project is underway. Henderson
County Cooperative Extension Service received EPA grant to
fund local Watershed Coordinator to implement plan.
South Hominy Creek French Broad 6010105060020 Jul- 03 Plan identified sediment and nutrients as key stressors. EEP stream restoration project is underway. EEP is
continuing to pursue identified projects.
Mud Creek French Broad Sep- 00 Plan documented many non- point sources of impairment and
degradation. Two EEP projects are underway and a 319 grant
is funding agricultural BMPs. EEP staff participate on Mud
Creek Watershed Restoration Council.
EEP is continuing landowner outreach and pursuing several
stream restoration projects. Caldwell/ Burke Soil & Water
Conservation District received EPA grant to fund local
Watershed Coordinator to implement watershed
improvement projects.
Bald Creek French Broad 6010108080020 Jul- 03 Plan identified habitat degradation and straight piping issues. Current mitigation needs are met. Viable projects available
for future mitigation needs.
Lower Creek Catawba Jul- 03 EEP is working with post- plan stakeholder group ( Lower Creek
Advisory Team) to implement plan recommendations.
NCSU WECO has received funding from State 319 program
to help restoration and preservation efforts in the LWP
starting 2009.
Charlotte Area LWP Catawba Feb- 02 EEP is contracting with Tetra Tech to conduct Phase IV.
Phase IV is focusing on stormwater BMPs as an alternative
mitigation strategy to restore lost hydrologic and water
quality functions associated with wetland impacts in urban
areas.
Upper and Middle Rocky River Cape Fear Oct- 03 Good restoration opportunities and favorable stakeholders.
Many projects and BMP opportunities identified. Several
projects funded and/ or pursued for funding.
Stream/ BMP project is currently in design. Viable projects
available for future mitigation needs. NCSU WECO is
Troublesome/ Little Troublesome Cape Fear Nov- 01 Many potential preservation, restoration and BMP sites
identified.
February 2004 ( Tetra
Tech)
Current mitigation needs are met. Viable projects available
for future mitigation needs.
New Hanover County Cape Fear 3030007140010 Sep- 00
Current mitigation needs are met. Viable projects available
for future mitigation needs.
EEP is pursuing several projects. Chapel Hill and Carrboro
have received funding from State 319 program to help with
BMP implementation, restoration, and preservation efforts in
the LWP starting 2009.
Several restoration projects and BMP sites identified
Morgan Creek/ Little Creek Cape Fear Nov- 02 Many restoration projects and BMP sites identified. Atlas sites
have been assessed.
Kenneth and Parker Creeks/ Harris
Lake
Cape Fear Apr- 03
Feb- 03 Plan identified four priority subwatersheds for implementation
and identified stream and wetland, buffer and BMP projects.
EEP staff performing basic educational outreach. Viable
projects available for future mitigation needs.
Cove Creek Broad May- 06 Fast track LWP to identify and acquire cold/ cool stream
mitigation needs. Plan identified fourteen stream restoration
projects that met EEP minimum requirements
EEP staff investigating a collaborative protection effort for
Hickory Nut Mountain
Catheys Creek Broad 3050105070020
41
LWP Name River Basin 14- digit HU Initiation Date Comments Phase III Completion
Date ( Contractor)
Phase IV Status
Appendix A ii. Local Watershed Plans Completed through Phase III as of July 1, 2008
6020002090020 Nov- 07
6020002100040 ( Equinox)
6020002100050
6020002170010
3040203030010 Dec- 05
3040203050010 ( Earth Tech)
3040207020010 Jul- 07
3040207020020 ( Stantec)
3040207020030
3040207020040
3040207020050
Jan- 04
( UNRBA data used for
LWP)
May- 04
( ECU and NCSU
supported planning effort)
Dec- 03
( Tetra Tech)
Dec- 06
( UNRBA)
3020202010010 Dec- 05
3020202010020 ( KCI)
3020202010021
3020201110010 Jun- 05
3020201110020 ( Amec/ Tetra Tech)
5050001030020 Jun- 07
5050001030030 ( WK Dickson)
3010205050010 Feb- 04
3010205050020 ( DS Pro)
3010205040010
Subwatersheds of: Jun- 05
3020103010020 ( BLUE Land and Water
Infrastructure)
3020103060020
3020103050030
3020103080010
EEP is waiting on resolution of mitigation needs before
pursuing projects.
Middle Tar- Pamlico Tar- Pamlico Sep- 03 Planning area exhibits water quality and habitat degradation
issues. Green Mill Run project has been discontinued; EEP is
currently implementing Hendricks Creek project.
Stream/ buffer project is currently in design. Viable projects
available for future mitigation needs.
Pasquotank River Pasquotank Dec- 01 Potential restoration, enhancement, preservation and BMP
opportunities identified.
In May 2008, EEP initiated contract with UNRBA and
EcoScience to develop Site Atlas and conduct landowner
outreach for five LWPs, including Upper Swift Creek, in
Upper Neuse Basin.
Little River and Brush Creek New Oct- 03 The final Watershed Management Plan focused on the Bledsoe
Creek sub- watersheds in the vicinity of Sparta. The final
EEP has initiated the design and construction of several
stream and wetlands restoration projects within the LWP.
Upper Swift Creek Neuse Jul- 03 Four EEP projects currently in progress.
Staff is determining feasibility of plan identified projects to
help meet current nutrient offset mitigation needs
In May 2008, EEP initiated contract with UNRBA and
EcoScience to develop Site Atlas and conduct landowner
Stoney Creek Neuse Core Creek Phase
– July 2003;
Stoney Creek
Following completion of Phase I on Core Creek, LWP effort
moved to Stoney Creek in 2004.
Current mitigation needs are met. Viable projects available
for future mitigation needs.
Little Lick Creek Neuse 3020201050020 Sep- 04
LWP effort funded through EPA Contentnea Grant. Plan
identified several restoration projects and BMP sites.
City of Wilson and WRP jointly implemented a plan-identified
stormwater wetland project.
Lake Rogers Neuse 3020201060010 Jan- 02 The original plan did not identify sites for restoration. The
current planning process with EcoScience includes site
identification in Lake Rogers and extends to the lower section
In May 2008, EEP initiated contract with UNRBA and
EcoScience to develop Site Atlas and conduct landowner
outreach for five LWPs, including Lake Rogers, in Upper
Hominy Swamp Creek Neuse 3020203020040 Sep- 99
EEP is currently pursuing plan- identified stream and riparian
wetland projects. NC Coastal Federation received an EEG
grant to implement BMPs identified in LWP.
Several restoration projects completed. Additional site searches
being conducted in Ellerbe Creek by EcoScience and the City
of Durham.
EEP is contracting with UNRBA and EcoScience to develop
Site Atlas and conduct landowner outreach for five LWPs,
including Ellerbe Creek, in Upper Neuse Basin.
Ellerbe Creek Neuse 3020201050010 Jan- 02
Lockwood Folly River Lumber Jun- 05 Plan identified 9 watershed management recommendation, 10
stream projects, 8 riparian wetland, 4 non- riparian and 23
stormwater projects. Brunswick County is addressing
management recommendations as well as seeking funding for
BMP projects.
Two restoration projects are underway. EEP is continuing
landowner outreach and education
Bear Swamp Lumber Oct- 03 The plan identified 28 projects. All stream projects were
visited and reviewed with local stakeholders. The plan was also
In 2007- 2008, EEP worked with the local municipalities,
native American tribe and other stakeholders to reach out to
Peachtree- Martins Creek Hiwassee Jul- 05 Plan identified stressors and management strategies, modeled
impacts of various growth management measures, and
identified 16 restoration sites and 7 preservation sites
42
LWP Name River Basin 14- digit HU Initiation Date Comments Phase III Completion
Date ( Contractor)
Phase IV Status
Appendix A ii. Local Watershed Plans Completed through Phase III as of July 1, 2008
3040101010080 Jun- 04
3040101010090 ( Tetra Tech)
3040101010010
3040101010100
3040101010110
3040105010010 Feb- 04
3040105010020 ( CDM)
3040105010030 Apr- 05
3040105010040 ( Mactec)
3040105010050
3040105020010
WECO and EEP performed education and outreach activities
for landowners and local government. Current mitigation
needs are met. Viable projects available for future mitigation
needs.
Upper Rocky River and Coddle
Creek
Yadkin Dec- 02 LWP is located adjacent to Upper Rocky River and Clarke
Creek LWP area. Together these two LWPs comprise the entire
Upper Rocky River drainage system.
Current mitigation needs are met. Viable projects available
for future mitigation needs. CWMTF funding sought for Ag
BMPs.
Upper Rocky River and Clarke
Creek
Yadkin Dec- 01 Many potential projects identified including ~ 80,000 ft of
stream restoration and BMP projects.
Several projects are currently in acquisition.
Kerr Scott Reservoir Yadkin Nov- 01 Approximately 60,000 ft of stream restoration identified.
Wetland opportunities are negligible.
43
LWP
Name
River
Basin
14- digit HU Initiation
Date
Status/ Comments Estimated Phase III Completion Date
3030002030010
3030002040110
Cape Fear
06
Cape Fear Final HU selection is taking place based
on local resource professional input.
This LWP will be primarily conducted “ in-house”.
A contractor will be used only for
GIS analysis and Site Atlas development.
3050102040040
3050102050010
3050102040030
601020240010
601020240020
601020240030
601020240040
601020260010
Subwatersheds of:
3020204030020
3020204030050
3020204040010
3020204050020
3020204050030
3020204050040
3020101020010
3020101030010
3020101030020
Subwatersheds of:
3030001020010
Subwatersheds of:
3020106030040
3040101100010
3040101100020
3040101110010
3040101110020
3040101110030
3040101110040
3040101110050
Subwatersheds of:
3040101110060
3040101110070
Jun- 08
Appendix A iii. LWP Initiatives in Progress/ On- Hold
Ararat
River and
Upper
Yadkin
Yadkin
Jun- 05
This LWP is an abridged ' fast track'
effort, designed to produce a final Project
Atlas within 12 months of start- up. Sub-watershed
prioritization will be completed
by October, and additional water quality
and benthics monitoring work is slated to
begin by October 2008. Quarterly
stakeholder meetings began in July of
2008. Recently reported DOT TIP delay
has reduced mitigation needs.
EEP is contracting with East Carolina
University and NC Environmental Defense
Apr- 06
McAdams Company – EcoEngineering is
providing technical support. Estimated
completion date is July 2009.
White Oak
06
White Oak Apr- 06 Technical Assessment first draft
completed
White Oak
01
White Oak
Jan- 08
Technical Assessment first draft
completed
Fishing
Creek
Tar-
Pamlico
May- 05 Phase II technical assessment draft
completed
Cape Fear May- 06
Plan is in Phase I and the stakeholder
process has commenced. Preliminary
screening has identified numerous
EEP is contracting with East Carolina
University and NC Environmental Defense
Planning effort has been placed on HOLD
pending further mitigation needs.
Phase I activities ended January 2006
( EcoScience).
Franklin to
Fontana
Little
Tennessee
Jun- 08 Phase I activities underway; new land
use/ cover, riparian buffer datasets
developed
Travis,
Tickle,
Project is close to completion with the
publishing of a Draft Phase III report and
EEP is contracting with KCI to perform
Technical Assessment. Estimated
completion date is February 2009.
December 2009. ENTRIX Inc., is contracted
to support Phase II fieldwork and
development of a project Atlas.
November 2008. Piedmont Triad Council of
Gov’t is providing technical and facilitation
Lower
Neuse
Neuse
Summer 2010. Equinox Environmental is
providing technical support.
Indian and
Howards
Creek
Catawba
44
LWP
Name
River
Basin
14- digit HU Initiation
Date
Status/ Comments Estimated Phase III Completion Date
Appendix A iii. LWP Initiatives in Progress/ On- Hold
3040104010010
3040104010020
3040103050010
3040103050020
3040103050040
3040105030020
3040105040010
Apr- 05 Planning effort has been placed on HOLD
pending further mitigation needs.
Planning effort has been placed on HOLD
pending further mitigation needs.
Goose and
Crooked
Yadkin Jun- 08 Phase I efforts began with Watershed
Technical Team Stakeholder ( WTT) kick-
EEP is contracting with Centralina Council
of Governments and Tetra Tech for Phase I
Upper
Uwharrie
Yadkin Phase I completed August 2005 ( Buck
Engineering).
Mountain/ L
ittle
Yadkin Jul- 03 Phase I report completed in March 2004
( HDR)
45
Local Government/ Municipality Project Name
Alamance County/ Burlington Little Alamance Creek ( Burlington Park)
Cabarrus County UT Rocky River- Harris Road Middle School
City of Durham Third Fork Creek ( Forest Hills)
City of Durham Northgate Park ( Ellerbe)
City of Durham Sandy Creek
City of Durham Ellerbe Creek ( Hillandale Golf Course)
City of Durham & Durham Public Schools Goose Creek
City of Greensboro Brown Bark Park
City of Greensboro Benbow
City of Greensboro Hillsdale
City of Greensboro Gillespie
City of Greensboro Price Park
City of New Bern Simmons St. Stormwater Wetland
Lenoir County/ Kinston Adkin Branch
Mecklenburg County Freedom Park
Mecklenburg County Sixmile Creek Wetland
Mecklenburg County McIntyre Creek
Mecklenburg County UT to Clarke Creek
Mecklenburg County Irwin Creek Whitehurst Road
Mooresville Graded School System Mooresville School Site- Rocky River
Orange County Stillhouse Creek
Orange County/ Town of Carrboro Bolin Creek ( Lake Hogan Farms)
Town of Cary Town of Cary BMPs
Town of Cornelius Caldwell Station
Town of Davidson/ Mecklenburg County UT to West Branch of Rocky River
Town of Fletcher UT to Cane Creek ( Fletcher- Meritor Site)
Town of Mooresville Dye Branch Stream Restoration Project
Town of Roseboro UT to Little Coharie Creek
Wake County Lake Myra Headwater Buffer
Wake County Middle Creek Buffer
A iv. Collaborative Projects with Government Entities
46
Ararat River & Upper Yadkin Local Watershed Plan
FACT SHEET
Location
River Basin:
Cataloging Unit:
14- digit Hydrologic Units:
Counties:
Upper Yadkin
03040101
03040101 100010, 100020, 110010, 110020, 110030, 110040, 110050
+ partial ( north of Yadkin River): 110060 and 110070
Surry
Watershed Area ~ 235 square miles
Planning Contact: Hal Bryson
EEP Watershed Planner, Western Region
( 828) 450- 9408
hal. bryson@ ncmail. net
Participants: Local Advisory Team ( LAT) – Committed stakeholders include: NC DWQ,
Surry SWCD, Surry NRCS; Prospective stakeholders include: Surry Co. Planning,
City of Mount Airy, Town of Pilot Mountain, Piedmont Land Conservancy, NC
WRC, NC CWMTF, NC Div. of Parks, Pilot View RC& D, NW Piedmont COG, Trout
Unlimited, Resource Institute, Inc.
Contractor( s) /
Consultant( s)
John R. McAdams Company
Jim Halley, Project Manager
NC DWQ – Watershed Assessment Team ( WAT)
Dave Wanucha, Project Manager
Project Overview
This Local Watershed Planning ( LWP) initiative consists of three major tasks: ( 1) a streamlined assessment of
watershed conditions across the initial study area ( portions of nine 14- digit HUs, comprising 235 sq. miles in the Upper Yadkin
River basin in Surry County) – see Figure on next page; ( 2) rapid field assessment of stream channel and riparian buffer
conditions within priority sub- watersheds, comprising a Focus Area of approximately 100 square miles; and ( 3) development of
a Watershed Assessment Report and Project Atlas. The Project Atlas is geared towards the identification of the most effective
sites for stream restoration/ enhancement and preservation projects, as well as agricultural and urban Best Management
Practices ( BMP) project sites. Final LWP documents will support EEP compensatory mitigation goals within the upper Yadkin
Cataloging Unit, as well as the needs of local stakeholders seeking to implement non- mitigation projects ( e. g., storm water
BMPs within urban sub- watersheds) via non- EEP funding.
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699- 27699- 1652 / 919- 715- 0476 / www. nceep. net
47
Staff from NC DWQ’s Watershed Assessment Team ( WAT) will lend vital support to this project by developing and
implementing a water quality monitoring plan. This will include sampling for water quality parameters and benthic macro-invertebrates
at selected sites within the priority sub- watersheds ( to be identified by fall of 2008).
The nine local watersheds ( 14- digit HUs) comprising the initial study area for this LWP were selected on the
basis of several factors, including: the presence of impaired, 303( d)- listed stream reaches; the opportunity to partner with
key local stakeholders, including Surry NRCS and SWCD; the presence of good candidate sites for stream restoration in rural
catchments; prior designation of three of the HUs as EEP Targeted Local Watersheds ( TLWs); and the presence of existing
watershed projects funded through the NC Clean Water Management Trust Fund ( CWMTF).
Project Schedule
This Local Watershed Planning ( LWP) initiative is based on a ‘ fast track’ watershed assessment that began in spring 2008.
It will culminate in the summer of 2009 with development of a final Watershed Assessment Report and Project Atlas. A Local
Advisory Team ( LAT) consisting of state and local resource professionals, including land trust and local government staff, will
meet quarterly beginning in the summer of 2008 to assist in developing project ranking criteria and BMP recommendations.
Project Documents
Will be posted as downloadable files, as they become available.
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699- 27699- 1652 / 919- 715- 0476 / www. nceep. net
Ararat River & Tributary Streams
48
COVE CREEK LOCAL WATERSHED PLAN
FACT SHEET
River Basin:
Cataloging Unit:
14- digit Hydrologic Units:
Counties:
Broad
03050105
03050105040040, 03050105040050, 03050105040060
McDowell, Rutherford
Watershed Area 80 square miles
Planning Contact: Andrea Leslie - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
( 828) 337- 3455 or Andrea. Leslie@ ncmail. net
Participants: Rutherford & McDowell Co. NRCS and SWCD
Contractor Hired for
Watershed Assessment
Earth Tech, Inc. Contact: Ron Johnson at ( 919) 854- 6210 or
Ron. Johnson@ earthtech. com
Project Overview
The Cove Creek watershed is located in a rural area of McDowell and Rutherford Counties. In 2006,
Earth Tech was hired to develop a fast- track watershed characterization and restoration strategy for
the Cove Creek watershed. This abbreviated planning effort involved GIS analysis of land use, buffer
integrity, and recent aerial photographs; field efforts were limited to assessment of channel and in-stream
habitat integrity at potential restoration sites. Stakeholder involvement involved several
meetings with local Natural Resource Conservation Service and Soil and Water Conservation District
technical staff.
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699- 27699- 1652 / 919- 715- 0476 / www. nceep. net
The majority of the watershed is forested, and headwater streams are in relatively good condition.
Most of the lower gradient bottomlands, through which Cove Creek and some of its tributaries run, are
used for pasture, hay, and homes. Cove Creek itself does suffer from severe bank erosion; in many
areas, its channel is incised and lacks a woody buffer. Primary stressors for the watershed are stream
incision of Cove Creek, inadequate riparian buffers, sedimentation, stream bank erosion, livestock
access, and possible nutrient enrichment. The greatest threat to stream integrity is development and
49
consequent increases in sedimentation, nutrients, and stormwater. This area is attractive to second
home and retirement communities; land prices have skyrocketed, and some larger forested tracts have
recently been sold.
A plan was developed to identify stream restoration projects with willing landowners and to name
strategies to improve ecological function in July 2007. Management strategies needed to restore and
protect stream health include stream and wetland restoration, buffer planting, agriculture, forestry,
and stormwater best management practices, and education. The plan identified 14 stream restoration
projects that fit the minimum requirements of EEP.
Project Documents for Download
Cove Creek Watershed Management Plan ( 3.5 mb)
Cove Creek Plan— Appendices A & B ( 4.6 mb)
Cove Creek Plan— Appendices C, D, E & F ( 3.8 mb)
Cove Creek Project Atlas ( 12 mb)
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699- 27699- 1652 / 919- 715- 0476 / www. nceep. net
50
1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699- 27699- 1652 / 919- 715- 0476 / www. nceep. net
FRANKLIN TO FONTANA LOCAL WATERSHED PLAN
Fact Sheet
Location:
River Basin:
Cataloging Unit:
14- digit Hydrologic Units:
Counties:
Near Franklin, NC
Little Tennessee
06010202
0601020240010, 0601020240020, 0601020240030, 0601020240040, 0601020260010
Macon, Swain
Watershed Area 154 square miles
Planning Contact: Andrea Leslie - Ecosystem Enhancement Program
( 828) 337- 3455 or Andrea. Leslie@ ncmail. net
Participants: Advisory Committee made up of Local Citizens, Little Tennessee Watershed Association, Land
Trust for the Little Tennessee, Macon County, Natural Heritage Program, more…..
Contractor Hired for
Watershed Assessment:
Equinox Environmental Consultation and Design, Inc.
Contact: Andy Brown at ( 828) 253- 6856 or andy@ equinoxenvironmental. com
Project Overview
The Franklin to Fontana watershed is a 154 mi2 area near Franklin that encompasses the Little Tennessee River
watershed between Lake Emory and Lake Fontana. This area is of great ecological and cultural significance, and it
includes a 23- mile free- flowing stretch of the Little Tennessee River that hosts a highly diverse aquatic community,
including a number of rare, threatened, and endangered fish and mussels. The area includes Cowee, Burningtown,
Iotla, Watauga, Brush, and Tellico Creeks. This primarily rural watershed is a mix of pasture, forest, and residential
land, but there is notable develo